The Minister of State was asked—

Patrick McFadden: As we said at the time of its launch, the automotive assistance scheme is for long-term reinvestment in the industry, not short-term rescue funding. The Department has been in contact with about two thirds of all companies who may qualify for assistance under the scheme, resulting in 19 formal expressions of interest so far. Projects in the pipeline could involve total Government support of about £1.45 billion.

Patrick McFadden: As I said, it is important to understand that this scheme is about long-term reinvestment projects, not short-term rescue. The Secretary of State said at the time of its launch:
	"There is no blank cheque on offer and there are no operating subsidies. We are committed to ensuring that anything backed by the scheme offers value for taxpayers' money, enables us to green Britain's economic recovery"
	and
	"delivers significant innovation in processes".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 178.]
	We are working through these projects with the companies concerned. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that there is no delay on the Government's part. We are working closely with the companies concerned, but we also want to ensure that we get value for money and the long-term benefits of reinvestment for the industry concerned.

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman echoes a point that has been raised by several potential applicants under the scheme about the £5 million threshold. My officials have worked with companies in that position to help them to brigade potential projects. We want to take a flexible and helpful attitude to this; we are not in the business of turning away companies for no good reason.

Lorely Burt: I have listened carefully to what the Minister is saying about long-term investment, but that does not mean long-term lead-in. If we look across the channel to France and Germany, and then further afield to the US and Japan, we can see that they have already delivered substantial amounts of assistance, so I do not understand why it is taking so long in the United Kingdom. For the past six months, while Parliament has been sitting, nothing has happened—not a single penny has been given to any automotive company. Now that we are going into recess, perhaps the Minister could give a guarantee about at least some funding coming through to the automotive sector—and during his holidays, perhaps he would like to pop over to France and Germany to see how they have managed to do it there when we cannot seem to do it here.

Kevin Brennan: First, Learndirect will not be shutting down all its centres by July 2010. It has been consulting its network of providers about a possible new approach, but as I said earlier, that approach is being tested and the Government will be consulted before any final decisions are taken. On the future of Train to Gain, we will be spending £1 billion in 2011, building on the expenditure this year. Train to Gain is safe with this Government, although not with the Opposition, who would cut it.

Rosie Winterton: The manufacturing sector remains absolutely vital to the west midlands economy. Advantage West Midlands and its partners are focusing investment on major markets in which the region has strength and which offer the best prospects for wealth creation and employment as we come out of recession. We have an industry growth programme worth £30 million in the current financial year and £25 million next year, of which 75 per cent. is focused on the manufacturing sector.

Rosie Winterton: As my hon. Friend is aware, my hon. Friend the Minister for the West Midlands, through his taskforce, has looked very closely at how to help small and medium-sized enterprises. I know that the Advantage West Midlands transition bridge fund has made offers of loans totalling some £9.3 million to 55 local businesses to date, and I believe that nine of those are located in his constituency in Coventry and Warwickshire.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. In that context, the last thing we want is public expenditure cuts, as proposed by the Conservative party. I think that the manufacturing advisory service has been able to give some direct help. Last year, the MAS helped approximately 2,600 companies in the west midlands and increased the value of business up to £85 million. My hon. Friend is right: we need to get that direct help out there quickly.

David Lammy: With due respect, I think that my sources at the funding council are slightly better than the hon. Gentleman's. The situation at London Met is very serious—and extraordinary. It is not unusual for institutions to have problems during the course of a year in relation to students who drop out of courses. In that case, money has to be clawed back from the funding council. However, the scale of the problems that has been revealed at London Met is unusual. The review that is now being conducted is therefore important. The Govt will look at the recommendations—

Adam Afriyie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for taking a while to get to the Dispatch Box—there are many colleagues on the Front Bench.
	London Metropolitan university offers excellent scientific research, high level science degrees and an ultra modern science centre. The Minister's answer was not good enough because, on 20 May in a debate in Westminster Hall, following serious allegations of collusion between HEFCE and LMU over the drop-out rates, which led to the crisis, he gave a clear and unambiguous commitment to the House. He said:
	"There will, of course, be an independent inquiry".—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 20 May 2009; Vol. 492, c.457.]
	When will that independent inquiry begin? The Minister has a choice: he can either confirm the inquiry or apologise for the misinformation.

Andrew MacKinlay: What progress has been made in funding the proposed co-location of the National Academy For Creative And Cultural Skills and the Royal Opera House production campus in Thurrock.

Andrew MacKinlay: "Soon" is ambiguous. Does the Minister mean in the next few days? In that case, I would tick the box marked "joined-up government". However, if he does not provide funding—approximately £650,000—immediately, this side of the recess, the project will be put in jeopardy. It is a flagship project—culturally, through its co-location with the Royal Opera House project, and in its relation to the Thames Gateway project and the projects for the Olympic games. I want to know whether we will get our money so that the design and the work can commence soon. I need to know that before we go into recess. Answer now.

Tom Clarke: In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden), let me say that her campaign goes well beyond Wales, vital though that is. In my county of Lanarkshire we have men and women with the skills and potential to do still more, but we would like to know what Corus's strategy really is?

Patrick McFadden: I believe that Corus values its work force, and that it is doing its best to maintain capacity in a very difficult trading situation. As I have said, it has the capacity to produce roughly 3 tonnes of steel for every 1 tonne that it is able to sell at the moment. In those circumstances, it is also working with the Government on extra training help for the work force, and we have offered £5 million of help for that training effort in order to work with the company to help maintain its work force through this difficult period.

Stephen Williams: Graduation parties taking place around the country at the moment are not the joyful occasions that some of us might remember, as graduates discuss their miserable job prospects. Yesterday, we heard the announcement of the Government's aspirations for green jobs and a greener economy, but we cannot meet our 2020 climate change targets without investment in skills—particularly in our engineering base—or without innovation. Would now not be a good time to ensure that all new graduates in physics and maths have a good chance of getting on to a research programme? At the moment, two thirds of such applications are turned down.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman; this must be a wonderful time for his family. May I also remind him that we have seen a massive increase in masters courses and other postgraduate study over the past 13 years? The figures are up, not by 30 per cent. or 60 per cent., but by 90 per cent., and 450,000 young people are now in postgraduate study, 350,000 of whom are studying STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects. The Opposition's proposal is a little bit too late.

Charles Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Gosh, we have reached question 10 and it is only just 11 o'clock!
	Given the additional administrative and legal requirements that the Government have placed on all universities for the handling of visa requirements for overseas students, does the Minister recognise that there is additional complexity and inconsistency in the way in which these applications are handled in the various home countries? There is also the length of the appeal process to consider and the fact that if a foreign student studying at a university in Britain has to apply for an extension, they now have to go via the UK Border Agency at an average individual cost of £357. Does not all that cut against the university policy encouraged by the Government to win more overseas students to the UK generally?

David Lammy: Universities play an important role in helping businesses and individuals through the downturn, but also in securing our future success in a knowledge-driven economy. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has a £60 million economic challenge fund, which is expected to help 11,000 business and 50,000 individuals through a range of activities.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right. I was pleased that universities acted so swiftly to ensure that they were plugged in and engaged with businesses regionally. It is right to say that the university of Derby has provided an excellent example. As well as the project to which my hon. Friend referred, there is the economic challenge fund bid, which is £2.27 million worth of support for the unemployed in the area, working with industry and business. The university of Derby's corporate project is also about engaging with highly skilled people in the area. I congratulate the university, and I also congratulate the sector on what it is doing to support businesses in a difficult time.

Kevin Brennan: The Government have already made a substantial commitment to extra funding for capital investment in further education colleges in the Budget. We will be spending over £300 million more in the next two years, taking total planned spending to £1.2 billion.

Hugh Bayley: Last week, I visited the brand new York further education college once again. It draws students from my constituency and neighbouring Liberal Democrat and Tory constituencies. It was made possible by capital from the Government, and is a fantastic £60 million new college. Will the Government continue to fund the building of new colleges so that young people and adults in other towns and cities in the country get the benefits seen in York, and that building workers get jobs during the downturn?

Maria Miller: Basingstoke college of technology has already spent £1 million on developing plans for future expansion. Basingstoke is, as designated by the Government, one of the most important employment areas in the country, and is part of the country's future economic growth. Will the Minister reassure me that such important strategic investments will get the priority that they deserve, because that has not always been indicated in the past?

Kevin Brennan: In the autumn, the Learning and Skills Council will consult colleges on the future capital programme, and a strategic approach will be taken based on priorities—learning priorities and so on. I assure her that the process will be fair, transparent, thorough and objective.

Ian Lucas: More than 110,800 orders for new vehicles have been placed since the scrappage scheme was announced in the Budget. July vehicle registration figures are not published yet, so I cannot give an exact answer. However, industry has indicated that total sales in June were 15 per cent. higher than forecast. To date, £15,080,000 has been paid out, and a further £14.5 million-worth of claims from manufacturers are being processed for payment.

Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for that response. May I also draw his attention to a slight discrepancy in the rules regarding cars that were first registered in Northern Ireland on or before 31 August 1999. My constituents, Andrew and Rachael Budd, found that although Ford, Renault and Citroen would gladly scrap their vehicle, Vauxhall and Peugeot said that they would not. Therefore, there are different interpretations of the rules. Will the Minister assure the House that cars first registered in Northern Ireland are covered by the scheme?

Ian Lucas: I regret to say that the discussions taking place with individual car companies are subject to commercial confidentiality. However, we are having active discussions with many car companies. In particular, we are investigating the development of green technologies, and discussing, in the context of the automotive assistance package, the impressive way in which car companies—including Nissan—are developing, for example, electronic vehicles. We hope that announcements can be made about the sector very shortly.

Ian Lucas: The Government continue to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses have access to the finance that they require. Since January we have secured lending commitment agreements with banks, introduced the enterprise finance guarantee—which to date has received over £0.5 billion of eligible applications—and, recently, launched the innovation fund as part of the Government's strategy for ensuring the UK's future economic success.

Peter Bone: It has nothing to do with the next Tory Government, and everything to do with this Government. They have nationalised the banks—billions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been put in—but small businesses in my constituency are going bust because the banks are not lending to them. What are the Government going to do about it?

Russell Brown: I fully recognise that my hon. Friend and other Ministers are doing the best they can, but there are still significant difficulties out there with some of the main banks. Are my hon. Friend and his colleagues making abundantly clear to Treasury Ministers and officials that small and medium-sized enterprises are, regrettably, still suffering at the hands of the major banks?

Ian Lucas: I am beguiled by the conversion of the Conservative party to adoration of what is happening across the channel. It seems that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is having rather more influence than I thought.
	We are taking action. Great progress has been made in the way in which we are delivering support for business. We will continue to do so—and Conservative Members have still not told me where they would find the money to pay for these programmes under a programme of cuts.

Greg Mulholland: Pubs are, of course, small businesses, and evidence from pubs around the country shows that they in particular are not receiving assistance and credit from banks. Will the Minister agree to look into that, and meet with a delegation from the save the pub group to discuss this important issue?

Desmond Swayne: And another thing: why is it that someone who is languishing on jobseeker's allowance has to wait six months before they can retrain? Why can they not start retraining straight away—and perhaps be retrained in some of the skills for the wonderful strategy the Minister has just described?

Kenneth Clarke: Has the Minister of State noticed that Royal Mail is losing business at a rate of about 10 per cent. annually, that it faces a pension deficit that will probably be valued at £10 billion, which it is unlikely to be able to fund, and that it now faces strike action? The Government have suspended all progress on a Bill that we were supporting, and which the Minister said was urgently necessary to secure the future of Royal Mail. Is the Government's policy one of benign neglect, or is he simply doing nothing?

Patrick McFadden: As the Secretary of State announced in the other place a couple of weeks ago, the market conditions have not been conducive to getting the best value for the taxpayer from the partial sale we have proposed. Where I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that that does not mean that Royal Mail does not face significant problems and challenges. It is important that the company gets on with its plans for modernisation, and that the union, which has said it is up for change, shows that that means something in practice—and I have to say that continued strikes and industrial action within Royal Mail will do nothing in the end to help it on the necessary road to modernisation, which is absolutely essential for the future of the universal service.

Kevin Brennan: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the consumer White Paper. The Government want to ensure that all consumers have access to the right tools to help them understand credit reference files better. Of course, people can request a paper copy of their credit reference—that will cost them two quid, so it is not that expensive. We will work with the industry to look at improving people's access to and understanding of their file, including whether it can be made available online.

Denis MacShane: At the close of business today, I shall present a petition on the steel industry. It has been signed by about 5,000 of my constituents and others, and was assembled in a matter of just eight or nine days. I welcome the announcement made by the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills that the Prime Minister is meeting Corus this afternoon—Lord Mandelson is, of course, coming to the steel industry in Yorkshire tomorrow. On a very narrow point, before the Prime Minister meets Corus and before Lord Mandelson comes up north tomorrow can the Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills examine credit risk insurance? It has been put to me that that is one of the issues to address. Providing such insurance does not cost the Government a lot of money and it is something that they can do. Taking such an approach would send a powerful signal that our Front-Bench team is on the steel industry's side.

Philip Hollobone: Those businesses that survive the recession face a 0.5 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions in 2011, at an additional cost of some £2.7 billion. Given that the subscription payments we make to the EU are set to more than double to £6.5 billion by 2011, would it not make sense to save that money and offset the unnecessary rise in the tax on jobs?

Hugh Bayley: I feel especially well disposed to the Department today. Tomorrow I will open a new packing plant at the Nestlé factory in York that will provide an additional 100 jobs initially and 200 in the longer term. It received support from the Government's enterprise finance guarantee scheme and a smaller company, IPS First, which is the co-packer. The new plant will reduce carbon emissions, because the Nestlé factory will no longer have to truck its Kit-Kats, Aeros and Polos to west Yorkshire for packing. I went to see—

Hugh Bayley: In a sentence, the Secretary of State—I went to see him about this—moved like lightning to get the money through and I would like my thanks to be passed to him.

David Taylor: The Opposition parties fought tooth and nail in overnight sittings to prevent one of our finest achievements—the national minimum wage. However, far too many of the recipients of that national minimum wage rely on gratuities to top their incomes up to that level. Will my right hon. Friend consider tabling appropriate amendments to the legislation at some stage, and can he publish some research on the numbers of people in that category?

Kevin Brennan: I will certainly look into the individual case of Frome community college, but an announcement was made on 26 June about the future of the further education capital scheme, which set out, thoroughly and rigorously, the projects that would be going forward in the next spending round. I undertake to look into the hon. Gentleman's case, but we need investment to proceed with these college building projects—I hope Opposition parties will commit to that investment.

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 20 July—Second Reading of the Child Poverty Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Tuesday 21 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
	The business for the week commencing 12 October will include:
	Monday 12 October—Remaining stages of the Health Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 13 October—Remaining stages of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 14 October—Opposition day [17th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 15 October—General debate on defence policy.
	Friday 16 October—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 October will include:
	Monday 19 October—Opposition day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 20 October—Second Reading of a Bill.
	Wednesday 21 October—Opposition day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a Liberal Democrat motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 22 October—Topical debate, subject to be announced, followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government has replied. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	 [The details are  as follows: The 1 st( ) to the 6 th , the 8 th to the 11 th , the 13 th to the 23 rd and the 31 st Reports  of the Public Accounts Committee of Session 2008-09, and the Treasury Minutes on these reports (Cm 7568, 7622 and 7636 ]
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 October will be:
	Thursday 15 October—A debate on Sure Start progression.
	It will also assist the House to confirm that the state opening of Parliament will be on Wednesday 18 November.
	Finally, I should like to thank all of the staff of the House for their hard work and commitment since the start of this Session last December.

Alan Duncan: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the business of the House. Perhaps she can tell us at what time the House will meet on Tuesday, as it often meets earlier than normal on the last day.
	First, will the Leader of the House explain why such an absurd number of written ministerial statements have been published today? There are no fewer than 53 on today's Order Paper, which means that we have had 90 published this week. Does she agree that we have the right to accuse her of rather taking the mickey? We know full well that the whole process is designed to dump everything on us at the last minute before the recess and so forestall Members' ability to hold the Government to account.
	One of today's statements is from the Communities Secretary outlining the Government's flawed and highly unpopular plans on eco-towns. Will the Leader of the House ensure that she will make time available for a full debate on the proposals as soon as the House returns? I can tell her and the House that a delegation from Leicestershire is even now delivering a petition to Downing street with the signatures of 15,000 local people who have registered their implacable opposition to the development of Pennbury eco-town. We are relieved that the Co-op scheme to desecrate green fields will not be on the shortlist, but does she appreciate the depth of anger about the proposals over the past few months?
	I note that amidst all these written statements, there is not one on Equitable Life. Last week, the right hon. and learned Lady once again ducked my question about whether we will have a full oral statement, before we rise, on how the Government intend to compensate policyholders. Given that the policyholders have been waiting nine long years for the Government to act on their plight, does she accept that it would be a total insult to them if there were not a full, oral update in this Chamber? Will she confirm that that will definitely happen?
	Does the right hon. and learned Lady intend to abide by the spirit of Mr. Speaker's statement on 2 July that Ministers should
	"ensure that the backlog of written questions that remain unanswered is cleared before the recess"?—[ Official Report, 2 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 496.]
	Does she not agree that it would be completely unacceptable for the Government to pump out a whole raft of new announcements before the recess without properly responding to the scrutiny of Members of previous announcements? Will she guarantee that those questions will be answered?
	The right hon. and learned Lady will know that I wrote to her, and all members of the House of Commons Commission, to ask whether we might introduce a new system during the recess of having what has been described as a "virtual statement" from a Minister. The swine flu outbreak is bound to require further comment over the summer. Might we allow the Secretary of State to make a formal statement online and then allow the Opposition to ask questions that are then given a formal response? That could be a very simple and sensible innovation that allows formal scrutiny without the excessive mechanism of recalling Parliament.
	May we also have a debate on how the Government intend to pay for their scheme to "build Britain's future", as they call it? Last month, the Prime Minister published his grand national plan, but unlike any other major announcement on Government policy, there has been no parallel publication of an impact assessment. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm when it will be published, or is it simply that the whole of the Prime Minister's so-called future plan is completely uncosted?
	The Leader of the House has always been a champion of greater equality, so may I take this opportunity to welcome her reappointment of Sir Treasure—I mean, Sir Trevor Phillips, although "treasure" is perhaps a better description—in his post for a second term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. However, this week it was briefed from her office that she wants to bring more northerners on to the boards of Government quangos and to break the monopoly of southern, white men. Given her wish to be an equalities role model, that puts her in a slightly difficult situation: she benefited from a private education, she hails from the aristocracy and she is a product of the south. It is a great relief, however, that at least she is a woman—and a champion one at that.
	Mr. Speaker, I wish you, the right hon. and learned Lady, all hon. Members and the staff who serve us a restful and revitalising summer break.

Harriet Harman: I can tell the House that on Tuesday we will commence our business at the normal time [Hon. Members: "When?"] We will not sit earlier than normal, because one item of business is the consideration of Lords amendments, and we have to give time for their lordships to have their deliberations before the legislation, as amended by them, comes back to this House. That is why, unlike what usually happens on the last day before the House rises, we will sit at the normal time.
	In relation to written ministerial statements, obviously it would be better if they could be spread more evenly, but there is something about the summer recess that concentrates Departments' minds to ensure that, if they have material that they have to make accountable to the House, they do it before the House rises. If they have put out some ministerial statements today—rather than doing it on the last day—that is some time before the House rises, which is important.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about eco-towns. We remain strongly committed to the fact that we need more housing for people in this country and high ecological standards for those new homes. We have had many debates in the House about eco-towns. Ministers have remained fully accountable to the House for the policy, and for the individual announcements made. I am disappointed that the Opposition do not welcome the extra eco-homes that will be in those eco-towns.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Equitable Life; he will know that at Treasury questions earlier this week, there was extensive discussion about it. I would like to emphasise that the ombudsperson, in her report, looked at the generality of the situation, and drew conclusions about the principles of the approach. Sir John Chadwick is taking the matter forward, looking at which individuals have suffered from action for which there is culpability, and which have suffered an injustice. He will have to set up a system of paying money to individuals.
	There are nearly a million policyholders, many of whom have lost out, and given that public money is about to be expended, it is important to look at setting up a framework for doing so. Information on who the policyholders are, what their policies were, when they took them out, and whether individuals made any changes to their policies has been forwarded to Sir John Chadwick's actuarial advisers, Towers Perrin, which is going through that information. Hon. Members, as well as everybody else, have been asked to make their views known to Sir John by this Friday, and he will produce an interim report in August. If we were tipping money out without a proper framework, the Opposition would rightly object and ask us what we were doing. There will be a statement, and there have already been oral questions on the subject.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the backlog of written answers. I look at the issue regularly, but I did so particularly in response to the points raised on the subject by hon. Members at the last business questions. I looked particularly at the Treasury backlog of questions and letters. There is an 80 per cent. standard for responding to correspondence within 15 days, and in the last 12-month period that was reported on, that standard was adhered to. Since then, because of the economic crisis, there has been a doubling of the number of questions and letters, and there needs to be a commensurate response. It has taken a while for that response to be forthcoming. In defence of the Treasury, there has been a doubling of questions and letters, but in defence of the right of the House to hold the Treasury to account, we want to make sure that standards of timeliness do not slip, precisely because the issues are so important at this time.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about accountability during the recess, and that, too, is a very important point. He identified the question of swine flu; hon. Members will want to be able to hold the Department of Health to account on how it is dealing with the issue. I also suggest that the issue of Afghanistan will remain of concern to hon. Members throughout the recess. On swine flu, Cobra will meet fortnightly throughout the recess. The Secretary of State for Health hopes to update the House before it rises for the recess, by way of an oral statement. He is considering how he will keep hon. Members informed during the recess. That will include all hon. Members getting a weekly update on figures in their constituency from the strategic health authority and/or primary care trust, so hon. Members will be given the figures as a matter of routine, without their needing to ask for them.
	As I say, Cobra will meet every two weeks. If there are issues that need to be communicated to Members in particular areas, those concerned will make sure that they find additional ways of ensuring accountability, while, of course, recognising the particular interest of members of the Health Committee. The Secretary of State is considering how he can ensure that accountability does not suffer during the recess, and any new technology, such as telephone conferencing or the online activity that the shadow Leader of the House suggested, will be used. In fact, last summer, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did exactly that and communicated with those hon. Members who represent areas that were flooded.
	There will be a debate on Afghanistan and defence this afternoon, there was a statement this week, the Prime Minister answered oral questions yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence answered oral questions on Monday, and there will be a debate during the week that we return from the recess. That leaves the question about the period over the summer, and, like the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Defence is concerned that there should be specific arrangements, which he will communicate to the House, about how we will ensure that accountability does not slacken when the House rises.
	I thank the shadow Leader of the House for welcoming the reappointment of Trevor Phillips as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I was slightly baffled by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I had said that there should be more northerners on quangos, not because it is not a good idea, but because I cannot remember ever having said it. However, I am sure that if he says that I said it, I must have done. I remember that there was lots of shouting about northerners during Prime Minister's questions yesterday. I wondered what it meant, and I think that I have worked it out: the problem is that there are not enough northerners on the Conservative Benches—and long may that remain.

David Heath: The Leader of the House gave a commitment that there would be a statement on Equitable Life before the summer recess. Can she confirm that that will take place? Yes or no?
	What should we make of the Government's commitment to cleaning up and reforming Parliament and our democratic system when it appears that the right hon. and learned Lady cannot provide one and a half hours to debate the setting up of the Select Committee on the reform of the House of Commons? The Political Parties and Elections Bill deals with essential matters concerning the conduct of elections and the funding of political parties, but there is no timetable for its return from the House of Lords, and if it does not receive Royal Assent, it will not be operable by the next general election. Mr. Speaker, you said earlier in the week that you did not do irony; I think that there is something deeply ironic about the fact that we cannot set up a Committee to organise the time of this House because the Government will not let us.
	I have the honour of representing Royal Naval air station Yeovilton, where the Royal Naval helicopter squadrons and the commando helicopter force are based. There has been a great deal of concern from all parts of the House about the provision of helicopters for our armed forces. The report by the Select Committee on Defence is being published today, and the indications are that, in some respects, it will be extremely critical of helicopter provision. I note that we have a debate about defence on 15 October, but can we be absolutely sure that the Government will provide a full and comprehensive response to the Defence Committee's report, answering its points in detail and acting on its recommendations during the summer, so that we can be sure in turn that we are not putting our young men and women in the armed forces at risk?
	Can we avoid my having to ask, when we return from the recess, for debates about either the so-called rain tax or the levy that was implicit in yesterday's Green Paper? On the rain tax, we have a holy alliance of bishops, scouts, test match cricketers and international rugby players, all saying that it is quite wrong to impose a levy on charities, community groups and sports clubs for surface water drainage. That issue needs to be sorted out this summer, and the Government must commit to doing so.
	The Green Paper's implicit levy may impose up to £200 a year on people in rural areas who depend on domestic heating oil or liquid petroleum gas for their heating. Those people are most likely to pay the most to heat their houses and least likely to be able to afford it, and it cannot be right that the proposed social tariff includes no provision for them.
	Finally, many Members, Officers of the House and those who work in the parliamentary estate will be going on their holidays shortly. Some will no doubt go abroad, and it will be recommended that they take up the European health insurance card, which provides for health service treatment in the rest of Europe. Mr. Speaker, if you apply for that online, the search engine will direct you to two sites: ehic.org, which sounds very official, and ehic.uk.com. One is organised by a company called Portcreek in Gosport and the other by Imap (UK) Ltd in Bolton. Each charges £9.95 for the European health insurance card application. However, if you go on the NHS or Department of Health site, the service is free.
	To apply for the card, people will, in ignorance, go through the companies that come up first on the search engine, but those companies are charging nearly £10 for a public document that is free. May we have a written statement—I do not expect an oral one—from the Secretary of State for Health about the practice, giving clear guidance? I want everyone to have an enjoyable holiday, and I do not want them to be ripped off before they go.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Harriet Harman: I have acknowledged that it is the right of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to make his intervention. We did not consult only Front Benchers; indeed, we had extensive consultation with Back Benchers who showed an interest in the topic by tabling amendments. We have accommodated all the amendments, including those from the hon. Member for Christchurch, but there is still a desire for a debate—so we will have it. I am glad that there is so much support for it, and I hope that all hon. Members will show up and vote for the motion when it comes before the House.

Christopher Chope: A journalist told me this morning that on Monday the Government were going to give time for a debate of one and a half hours on the setting up of the new Select Committee. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it will indeed be of one and a half hour's duration and on Monday? Why did she not say that in her initial statement today, and why was the motion taken off the Order Paper last Thursday, when there would have been time for such a debate if the Government had wanted it?

John Battle: As Members of Parliament, we probably all regularly visit schools in our constituencies, but is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we will now personally need Criminal Records Bureau checks and certificates to do so? I have been informed that we cannot apply individually—our place of work needs to sponsor and reference us. I know that locally elected councillors, for example, are automatically put through and get certificates. Will she and the House authorities sort this matter out for us, preferably before September?

Harriet Harman: This is something about which my officials and I need to have discussions with officials from the Department for Children, Schools and Families. We should all agree that if people are going to be on their own with very young children, whether they are councillors or Members of Parliament, we need to ensure that that does not put at risk the safety of those children. I am afraid that in the past there have been cases where people have been elected as local authority councillors and then issues have been raised as to child protection. I do not think that we should turn away from the idea that we want to ensure that children are protected. This must obviously apply only where there is unsupervised access: somebody who speaks to an assembly of 600 sixth-formers will not need to go through a vetting process. It will have to proceed on the basis of common sense. If people are to be left alone with children at a sports event, the parents need to have the reassurance of knowing that those who are in a responsible position with vulnerable children are properly vetted. I will ensure that my officials liaise with the appropriate DCSF Minister and we get a common-sense, workable solution to this.

Simon Hughes: Much has been said about the importance of the recent allegations about the tapping of answerphone messages. I note that it is not just celebrities with huge amounts of money or politicians like yours truly who are the victims, but our constituents who are much less able to defend themselves in public or likely to have the resources to challenge journalists who break the law. Could the Leader of the House ensure that in the first week after the recess a Home Office Minister comes to the House to report on the three inquiries that have now started—by Committees of this House, by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by the Information Commissioner—so that if the law is not tight enough, it is tightened, and if people ought to be prosecuted, they are prosecuted?

Nigel Evans: May we have a debate on the BBC as we try to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and on public sector pay? We are now told that its viewers are going to be consulted on whether its so-called top talent are worth the money they get. The only way that viewers can really come to a judgment on that is if they are told exactly how much they are earning, but the BBC refuses to tell us. We are told that transparency may now lead to a 40 per cent. cut in Jonathan Ross's £6 million-a-year pay; how he can possibly survive on £3.5 million we will never know. Surely we need transparency on top talent pay at the BBC.

Harriet Harman: I share the concern that there should not be lavish spending at the top of the BBC, whether it is on managers, governors or celebrities. However, I am slightly concerned that while we hold the BBC to account for licence payers' money, we should not tip over into BBC bashing, which has started to colour some of the Opposition's comments.
	I would also like to place it on record that I think it absolutely shocking that Arlene Phillips is no longer going to be a judge on "Strictly Come Dancing". As the Minister for Women and Equality, I am suspicious that there is age discrimination there, so I should like to take this opportunity to say to the BBC that it is not too late—we want to see Arlene Phillips in the next edition of "Strictly Come Dancing".

Evan Harris: The Leader of the House knows that I strongly support her Equality Bill, but I support even more the need of Members to scrutinise it—those who support it and those who have concerns about it. Given the widespread concern about the treatment of Report stages, including the lack of time and the number of groups of amendments not reached, and given that she said three weeks ago that she recognised that the Equality Bill needed full scrutiny, will she explain to the House how she proposes to take forward the discussions that she promised with Front Benchers and beyond on how we will deal with that Bill so that it is not added to the list of Bills not properly scrutinised on Report?

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House give me and the House an assurance today that the motion on the reform of the House of Commons, which is to be debated on Monday or Tuesday—we do not know which—would give the House and the new Committee an opportunity to ensure that responsibility for Standing Orders was handed over from the Executive to a Committee of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make the point, I think for the fourth time this week—I expect it to be heeded by all Members—that I do not want loud, sedentary heckling from hon. or right hon. Members? That is not a request, that is a ruling, and I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that that is the end of the matter.

Andrew MacKinlay: Did the Leader of the House notice that many of our Scottish colleagues, in solidarity for which I am very grateful, voted so that I could attend the East of England Grand Committee in Bedford? When will I be able to reciprocate and vote for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet—maybe in West Lothian—bearing in mind that it has not met since 13 November 2003? Why has it not met? Are things so wonderful in the kingdom of Scotland, like the Garden of Eden, that it does not need to meet?

Richard Younger-Ross: May I urge the Leader of the House to ensure that we have a statement on the vetting and barring scheme, including on why prominent authors are not looking to visit schools even though they would be accompanied the whole time they were there? If the scheme is to apply, can we be sure that it will apply to all hon. Members, whether they are Back Benchers, Cabinet Ministers or the Prime Minister, and that Members will not be able to claim the £64 fee on their expenses?

Peter Bone: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her help throughout the year and praise her for the occasions she has stepped in as acting Prime Minister. I woke up in a terrible sweat after having a nightmare last night—I dreamed that Lord Mandelson had been running the country. Can we get it quite clear that when the Prime Minister packs his Speedos, picks up his bucket and spade and goes on holiday, we will know who is running the country? The public have the right to know: is it Harriet or Mandy?

Harriet Harman: We want to ensure ever improving patient safety. Obviously, we convey our sympathies to the family in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who have suffered a bereavement.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that if they look at the figures, they will see that the specialisation and bringing together of services have meant that many lives that would have been lost have been saved. Patient safety has been at the forefront of those changes at a time of massive investment—so it is not a question of cutting back resources; far from it. There has been massive investment year after year, continuing last year and this year. Specialisation of services, where it has happened, has also contributed to saving lives.
	I rebut the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Lord Darzi gutted services. I thank Lord Darzi for the great part that he has played in the improvements in the national health service. We all owe him a great tribute.

Parliament (disclosure of information) Bill

Edward Miliband: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of preparation for the Copenhagen climate change conference.
	Today's debate is held at an appropriate time—a week after the 17 countries of the Major Economies Forum met in L'Aquila in Italy and accepted the long-held scientific consensus that we should seek to prevent dangerous climate change above 2° C, and the day after we in Britain published our road map to 2020, the low carbon transition plan, which sets out our plans for a 34 per cent. reduction in emissions in the UK by 2020 compared with 1990.

Charles Walker: We have set some ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions—I think it is 80 per cent.—by 2050. How is that compatible with increasing the population in the same period by more than 10 million? The Home Secretary said that he was relaxed about this country's population increasing by 10 million, but that will increase the size of our carbon footprint.

Edward Miliband: It all depends on the actions that we take. Globally, there will be a significant increase in the population in the next decades. That argues for a transition to the low-carbon path and away from the high-carbon path. We must do that, whatever the size of the population, but obviously increasing population means increasing carbon emissions and we need to take action. I am confident that we can; that is within our projections.
	I was saying that it was an appropriate time to hold a debate on the preparations for Copenhagen. I believe that it is a make-or-break year: President Obama in the United States is showing new leadership; China wants a deal, and the acceptance of 2° C as the yardstick by which we should judge success or failure at Copenhagen is important. However, there is a long and hard road ahead. I want to highlight in my brief remarks the five big challenges that we face between now and December.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need real leadership at local authority level? As much as Government may exhort and have the right policy framework, we need leadership in and from local authorities. We have some excellent ones—we all know about the Kirklees model—but we also have local authorities that lag behind, so we need a bit of a push to get them moving in the right direction.

Nigel Evans: rose—

Edward Miliband: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I want to make some progress—I feel like I am at the starting line of my speech.

Edward Miliband: Absolutely. That is why we made available £120 million yesterday to support, for example, the offshore wind manufacturing industry.
	Let me come to the five challenges that we will face between now and Copenhagen. The more consensus that we can achieve in the House on these questions, and particularly on the international side, the better, so I look forward to hearing other hon. Members' speeches in this debate. First, we need to show that the mitigation actions by developed and developing countries are consistent with the 2° benchmark. When it comes to the targets and the commitments made by developed and developing countries, the question is: are they consistent with the actions that the scientists tell us are necessary to meet the 2° target and to contain temperature rises on the planet to below 2°? In Britain we have set an emissions target for 2020 of 34 per cent. below 1990 levels. However, we stand ready to tighten and improve that target as part of a global deal at Copenhagen.
	The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the scientific body in charge of those issues—said in its 2007 report that, for developed countries as a whole, we needed to aim for 25 to 40 per cent. reductions on 1990 levels by 2020. There is no doubt that that is a challenging objective, given the situation in America and elsewhere, but the 25 to 40 per cent. target is still an important benchmark. There may be other scientific pathways to get to the 2° target, but that benchmark is—at the moment, anyway—the dominant way in which we are thinking about such issues, and it indicates that all countries, but particularly developed countries, need to show maximum ambition.

Edward Miliband: Obviously it is for the Opposition to speak for themselves, but my hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will come to in a moment. We need to ensure that the resources that we put into climate change finance are not simply taken from existing finance for poverty reduction, although I will come to that in a moment.
	Developing countries have an important role to play. Studies have suggested that by 2020 they need to show a deviation from what we would otherwise expect them to do—that is, from what one might call "business as usual" and continuing to emit at current rates—of 15 to 30 per cent. That is an important part of the challenge that we face between now and Copenhagen.
	The second challenge—this touches on the point that my hon. Friend made—is on the finance and the financial architecture of a global deal. There is no question but that that is one of the most difficult issues that we face in Copenhagen. Developed countries are hard pressed financially and resources will obviously be hard to come by. At the same time, however, on the basis of historical responsibility for emissions, there is no question but that developed countries bear responsibility for the emissions in the atmosphere—cumulatively, between 1850 and 2000, about 30 per cent. of global emissions came from the United States, about 30 per cent. came from the EU and 6 per cent. came from China. Per capita emissions in developed countries are still significantly higher than in developing countries, and obviously the development needs of developing countries are significantly higher as well.
	That is why the Prime Minister made the speech that he did a couple of weeks ago, when he suggested—he was the first world leader to suggest this—that we should have a working figure for how much money we are seeking to raise, namely $100 billion by 2020. He also said that it should come from private and public financial sources—from the global carbon market and public sources—and that we needed new sources of finance, in addition to official development assistance. We are attracted by various proposals, including from Norway and Mexico, and importantly—this comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) made—we should limit the ODA used to 10 per cent., so that we do not simply divert it away from poverty relief.
	That is a very important point in commanding the confidence of developing countries in the negotiations. I urge those in all parts of the House, including the official Opposition, to think hard about that. They published a document earlier this week looking at overseas development, but it was not explicit on that point, so I hope that when the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) responds he can say something about their attitude, because it would send a bad signal if it looked like we were simply going to transfer money wholesale from ODA to climate finance.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman helps me to segue into my third point, which is about technology. For countries such as China, the key in the negotiations is not finance, but the big technological questions. From my experience of the discussions on this issue, it may not be the most difficult one that we face in the negotiations, but it is the most complex. We need to respect intellectual property rights, because they are an important part of the technology being developed, but, having been in China, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is sometimes hard to pin down exactly what is required.
	To take carbon capture and storage as an example, the way I look at it is like this. Rich countries have a responsibility to demonstrate new technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which is crucial to the problem of coal production. People understandably campaign about new power stations in the UK, but in one part of China that I visited—Guangdong province—the plan over the next 10 years is to build 40 GW of coal power, or approximately 25 new power stations. The good news is that China is interested in carbon capture and storage and in the role that it can play in that country. Our responsibility is to help to demonstrate the new CCS technology and share our know-how on it as best we can. In the coming months, as part of the Major Economies Forum, we will be working out how best we can drive that new technology through, as well as transferring established technology.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we need to be cautious on biomass—and, indeed, on biofuels generally. We need to ensure that they do not contribute to some of the problems that have been identified.

Peter Bone: I have a problem on the question of biofuels. I thought that I was saving the planet by buying a biofuel car—Wellingborough has one of the few biofuel pumps in the country. Are we saving the planet by buying such cars, or are we destroying it?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Miliband: I will not give way, because I must wind up. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
	We need a robust system of MRV—monitoring, reporting and verification—and good ideas have been put forward on how we can manage that process and ensure that developing and developed countries are clear about the actions that they are going to take.
	Let me summarise the challenge that we face and end on a note of optimism. We want an ambitious agreement, with clear mid-term and long-term targets to keep us on—at the very worst—a 2° pathway. We want the agreement to be fair, because the poorest countries need to move from high-carbon to low-carbon growth, and we need to accept our responsibilities as developed countries. The agreement also needs to be comprehensive, covering not only the actions that each country needs to take but the actions required by international sectors such as aviation and shipping.
	I want to end on this note of optimism. When I came into this job, many people talked to me about the chances of success at Copenhagen, and said that President Obama would not be interested in dealing with these issues because he would have too many other things on his plate. They said that he would get to them in his second year. What has actually happened is that, with new US leadership, with Chinese engagement and with wider developing country engagement on the issues, the chances of success at Copenhagen have significantly increased. We face a long, hard road ahead in the next few months, and the UK Government stand committed to straining every sinew to get the kind of ambitious agreement that we need to protect the planet for future generations.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why his party changed its view on nuclear power, seeing it now as a first resort rather than a last resort? Was it to do with the £93 billion bill to clear up old nuclear, or the fact that nuclear has never been delivered on budget or on time, or the fact that the only new nuclear power station in the world is already three years late and €2 billion over budget?

Greg Clark: I am grateful for that intervention. My assessment is that nuclear power is clearly a low-carbon source of energy. We discussed yesterday how we need to diversify our sources of energy generation for energy security purposes, so unless one has an objection in principle to nuclear as a technology—and we do not— given that it contributes to energy security, and is consistent with our climate change objectives, and if it is economically viable, I would expect to see it as part of the mix.

Greg Clark: That point again takes us back to yesterday's discussions. The difficulty we are in—it is one of the points I raised yesterday—is that we been through a period in which public policy has not grappled with the predictable issues, one of which is the fact that the majority of our current nuclear fleet comes to the end of its planned life during the decade ahead. It is now too late to even replace the capacity provided by those nuclear power stations before the existing fleet reaches the end of its planned life. I think that decisions were ducked during that period, but according to the promoters, such as EDF, for example, 2017 or 2018 are the earliest years by which we could expect that contribution.

Greg Clark: I think— [Interruption.] Well, I was certainly in the Conservative party in 1997. On questions like that, I suggest that the hon. Lady asks her own Front-Bench team for factual information; I am sure they will be happy to oblige.
	Let me make some more progress. Copenhagen will be seen by many as a fork in the road—and to some extent it will be, because trillions of dollars are waiting to be committed one way or the other, with investors looking to the world's leaders to set a clear direction. I therefore agreed with the Danish Prime Minister when he said last month that the meeting in Copenhagen
	"may be one of the most important meetings of this new millennium—a meeting where we cannot afford to fail".
	The worst kind of failure at Copenhagen, however, would be failure dressed up as success, by which I mean an agreement that literally promised the earth without achieving the action required of every major emitting nation, including those in the developing world. A fake deal would eventually be exposed for what it was, but by that point, precious time would have been lost.
	Of course, it is in the nature of international summitry to blur the line between success and failure. We saw a prime example at last week's G8 summit in Italy, where on the face of it a great success was scored when the signatories agreed to make cuts of 80 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, in the small print, the agreement referred to a base year of
	"1990 or more recent years".
	This matters because the choice of the base year can make a huge difference to the size of the carbon limits actually agreed to. For instance, between 1990 and 2007, annual emissions in the US alone increased by 1,000 million tonnes—more than the total annual emissions of Britain and France combined.
	We have already seen Japan attempt to use 2005 as its base year, and the same date was used by this Government when they unveiled an aviation emission target as what I regard as a fig leaf for their decision to build a third runway at Heathrow. Fiddling around with base years is just one way of moving the goal posts, but the only goal that really matters is the reduction required to keep the rise in global temperatures below 2°C.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, because what he has mentioned is exactly the problem. If countries rebased their targets every time a different direction was indicated over a series of a few years, we would never meet our commitments. I believe that we need stability and that we need to follow the long-term consensus of the science. In this country, that means following the Climate Change Act 2008, which my hon. Friend supported, under which a committee comprising scientists and other policy makers keeps the issues rigorously under review. That is the right approach. I hope that in this regard the role of the British delegation in Copenhagen will be to unblur, as it were, the line between success and failure and to focus on clarity in the discussions.
	Twenty years ago, Margaret Thatcher stood before the Assembly of the United Nations and told the truth about the emerging scientific evidence on climate change. Twenty years later, the world's Governments will meet at Copenhagen and either they will agree to the necessary action or they will not—but we owe it to the people of the world to tell them which it is.
	Another test of whether the agreement is a success or a failure is implementation, about which the Secretary of State rightly spoke. It is ultimately implementation, not targets, that provides the surest test. When it comes to the facts on the ground, it is impossible to blur the distinction between success and failure. Either megawatts of clean energy are installed or they are not. For instance, there can be no fudging of the fact that in the decade up to 2005, the share of renewable energy in the UK went from 1 per cent. to 1.3 per cent. I hope we all agree that that is disappointing. We can recognise that for what it is—a wasted opportunity—only if we are clear about the difference between success and failure.
	The implementation agenda is all the more important because Copenhagen must find a way of binding in not only countries like ours, but developing countries, including those which are rapidly industrialising, such as China and India. They are not only significant contributors to global emissions, but are capable of making a real contribution to the development of a low-carbon economy both domestically and globally.
	We are told that these developing nations will not agree to targets. That may or may not be the case when it comes to the negotiations, but if it is the case, it is on the implementation of action plans—with regard reducing carbon intensity, for example—that this part of the global deal will stand or fall. It is therefore absolutely vital that we in the developed world can bring forward credible implementation strategies of our own to show that this can be done. Unless we do so in our countries, there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the same will happen in the developing world.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman will know that developing countries have agreed that they should perform nationally appropriate mitigation actions. As part of that, they look to the developed world to provide funds to enable them to do that—as well as to intellectual property rights, which were mentioned earlier. Will the hon. Gentleman commit, as the Government have committed, to ensuring that only 10 per cent. of the official development assistance budget is used to facilitate the developing countries' nationally appropriate mitigating actions—and no more than that, as that would be seen by those countries as good faith, whereas anything more would be seen as bad faith?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Colin Challen: It is pleasure to take part in this short debate on climate change. The fact that it is a short debate indicates that more immediate problems tend to come ahead of climate change in our consideration—I do not intend to undermine the importance of the debate on Afghanistan in any way. I look forward to a longer debate on climate change in the autumn.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is correct that we must be consistent in trying to meet the targets that climate change science tells us we ought to meet if we are to stay within a 2° temperature increase. I would like to talk about those numbers, because policy based on scientific analysis is quite new in politics—policy of such magnitude based on science is extremely new. I address my comments not only to Government Members but to Opposition Members, because the point would be a crucial one to miss.
	The numbers are terribly important, and the Government are far more candid on them than they were two or three years ago, which I welcome. I draw Members' attention to page 35 of the "Road to Copenhagen" document, which for the first time provides an honest assessment:
	"It is estimated that stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 ppm CO2 equivalent gives around a 50 per cent. chance of keeping temperature levels below 2°C and reduces the chance of increases of between 3 to 4°C. Higher concentrations would reduce the chance of staying below 2°C significantly and increase the chances of much higher temperature rises."
	That is a major step forward from the publication of the Stern review two and a half years ago, when the range of targets discussed went up to 550 parts per million, on the basis of which one could plan one's policy, prepare one's budgets and so on. Nick Stern has now reduced his estimate of where we should be to, I think, 450 parts per million. Around the world, others are saying it should go much lower. Jim Hansen, for example, has suggested that 350 parts per million, which is less than where we are today, ought to be our longer-term target.
	Those numbers may seem arcane to most people outside this Chamber, and I suspect that that is an inevitable consequence of a science-based policy. However, it is essential that we base our policies on numbers based on the science. I fear that in some cases we are still not managing to do that. The Committee on Climate Change's recommended budgets, for example, appear to be based on some modelling that rather ignores the impacts of coupled models, in which the impact of positive feedbacks and carbon sink failures are calculated. The Hadley centre, which contributed evidence to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, has examined the differences between coupled and uncoupled modelling, and shown that if we followed the coupled model, global carbon emissions would have to be reduced by 80 per cent., not the 50 per cent. that many people are now talking about. That is a radical step change in the budgets that we should consider. Should anyone care to look at it, that evidence from our own Hadley centre is repeated authoritatively in the IPCC AR4 work group 1 report, chapter 10, page 791.
	There is already a big change in Government, which is welcome, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be congratulated for shaking things up. However, we always seem to be chasing our tail on climate change policy, and the science seems to be pointing south—even more so than six months ago. In March, the Copenhagen congress on science suggested that the impacts of climate change will be worse than many people thought.

Colin Challen: I could not agree more with that assessment. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State goes to Copenhagen and tells his colleagues—or tells the Americans or the Chinese before Copenhagen—that he is under constant pressure in the House to do a better deal, that is of great value. I make no apology for sometimes sounding critical of my Government. The criticism should come from all sides. We are not looking for a consensus around motherhood and apple pie. I am looking for a bigger effort.
	In another example of the Government's candour of late on the issue, in response to my written question about the contribution of Government policy to reductions in CO2 emissions in this country since 1990, I received the reply that the dash for gas contributed 15 per cent. of that reduction, that the change between imports and exports—the fact that more manufacturing takes place in China and we import it back—accounted for about 30 per cent. of the reduction in carbon emissions, and that other factors, of course, also contributed. The written answer stated:
	"The direct effect of Government policies overlaps with the estimates given above and is likely to have accounted for about 15 per cent."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 36W.]
	Therefore, between 1990, the baseline year, and today, Government policy—from Governments of both parties, presumably—contributed about 15 per cent. to our reduction in greenhouse gases.
	In my view, 15 per cent., which is equivalent to the contribution from the dash for gas, is simply not enough. Hopefully, the budgets that have now been published, and the report and statement yesterday, will indicate that we will go well beyond 15 per cent., and I hope that we will be much more interventionist in the markets, and tell them what they have to do—not leave it all to the magical formula called, "Not picking winners", which so far, I think, has managed to pick quite a few losers.
	The idea that we would aim for higher greenhouse gas emissions cuts if we had a global agreement calls on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Ministers and the EU generally to make a big impact on the Americans. I know that we all welcome President Obama's contribution to the debate, and we all welcome the Waxman-Markey Bill, although its headline reduction figure seems lower than that of the Kyoto protocol. However, a recent comment has caused me considerable concern. Todd Stern, who is President Obama's lead envoy for climate change, said in June, during the Mexico talks of the Major Economies Forum,
	"In our judgment"
	the cut proposed by the European Union
	"is not necessary and not feasible given where we are starting from. So it is not on the cards."
	That is an alarming position for us to find ourselves in, particularly now that the Waxman-Markey Bill has left the House of Representatives, having been watered down quite a bit and facing a much tougher battle in the Senate, where the Republicans—in my view, a horrid little core group of far-right extremists when it comes to this subject—will dig their heels in and oppose it every inch of the way.
	It is unlikely that the United States will come up with a settled piece of legislation in December. It will have one foot in the camp and one foot outside it, and we need to recognise that that could have great consequences for the European Union's higher intended target. Are we really going to proceed with the proposal for 40 per cent. cuts by 2020 if the Americans are promising only 4 per cent.—or, given the other measures in the Waxman-Markey Bill, possibly slightly more?
	I hope that we shall receive some response to the message that we are sending on behalf of those in the developing world, the people who have given us their carbon emissions free of charge since the industrial revolution. Of course, they may say that they did not give us their emissions, but their emissions were stolen from them. Those people should have an equal voice in Copenhagen. It should not be just the major economies that determine the agenda; the countries in the developing world should have an equal say, because it is their atmosphere as much as ours. If we do not recognise that, we will go horribly wrong, and there will be no agreement worth having in Copenhagen.

Simon Hughes: Of course I applaud the Secretary of State and his colleagues for their work, but I will accept the appeal from the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for me to do my job between now and December in maintaining the constant pressure on the Government to be ambitious, not just for the United Kingdom but for the world. I see six opportunities. Although we are talking about Copenhagen, there are the three inter-sessional meetings—in Bonn, Bangkok and Barcelona—the United Nations Secretary-General's meeting in New York to discuss climate change, the Pittsburgh summit, and the meeting of the Council of the European Union. All those meetings provide opportunities, and I hope that each of them will ratchet up progress.
	I have only six minutes in which to speak, so I shall be brief. I begin by flagging up two facts. I shall then ask questions about what the Government have said so far, identify places where we need to do better, and present proposals that I hope I may be able to persuade the Government to take on board.
	First, let me say something about our contribution. Most of the public still do not quite understand the figures, the science and the urgency. The United Kingdom's citizens represent about one in 110 people on the planet, but we contribute about one fiftieth of global emissions. We are the country of the industrial revolution, and we have an historic legacy. We have a huge responsibility because of that legacy, because of our responsibility in the European Union, and because of our responsibility in the Commonwealth. If all these countries could come together, they could play a hugely important part. The Secretary of State said yesterday, or colleagues of his have said, that we share the ambition of the Swedes. The Swedes now hold the EU presidency, and we need to work with them and the other progressives in the EU to drag the recalcitrants along with us.
	Let me make a second "setting the scene" point. The rich developed countries constitute about a fifth of the world's population, but three quarters of the emissions are ours.
	We must be clear about what we have to do. If we are to make this year the most important since the Kyoto deal in 1997, we must do several things. First, we must follow the science all the time. The direction of travel must be clear. I hope Ministers will say that they accept that emissions must peak globally in 2015 or 2016. In that case, we should aim for the 40 per cent. global target suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rather than a target of 20 or 30 per cent., which would mean a target of more than just 34 per cent. or 42 per cent. in this country. I am aware of the difficulties, however, and of the economic backdrop.
	Secondly, while the Prime Minister's speech was welcome in setting a starting point, I think that we should build on that. The United Nations is central to delivery. I suggest a leapfrog fund of the kind which I believe is proposed by the Mexicans, allowing the developed countries to contribute to the kitty of the developing countries. That would be in addition to contributions that we have already made, and would be used for purposes of technology change. I also suggest an adaptation fund to prepare people and deal with the crisis that would afflict countries such as Bangladesh—I believe that 18 per cent. of the country would be under water—and the Maldives, which would disappear completely. We need an insurance mechanism to cover developing countries that implement risk reduction against climate-related or disaster losses, and a fund to prevent deforestation, which is one of the biggest contributors of global emissions, although it is not perceived to be so important from here.
	The Prime Minister proposed a $100 billion contribution. We think that $160 billion will probably be needed for each year of the period between 2013 and 2017. What can we do to increase the Prime Minister's proposed figure? Conservative Front Benchers were asked whether they thought that this money should be additional to overseas development money. The Minister will expect me to say that the Liberal Democrats think that it should be additional. I understand the argument about the overlapping 10 per cent., but we have been struggling to implement the Brandt commission's 0.7 per cent. target for decades. If I may put it bluntly, if we do not have additional money, we will lose many of the other opportunities of which the Minister and his colleagues are aware.
	I am also not sure how much of the $100 billion—let us take that as the starting point—would be new and additional money. If 50 per cent. is to come from carbon markets and $20 billion from global official development assistance, that leaves only $30 billion of new money, which is not a very ambitious figure. Many people—including members of the campaign groups who brief Ministers, and brief me—suggest that it should be higher. Finally, what percentage should we contribute? In its briefings to us, Oxfam suggests that our fair share of $100 billion should be about 5.4 per cent., or $5.4 billion. Is that accepted? The Minister has heard the proposition; obviously we believe that the figure should be higher.
	This is not just an opportunity for us to deal with the environmental crisis. It is probably the best opportunity in all our lifetimes for us to deal with the global inequity that is the legacy of industrial development. It is crucial for us to deal with that in Copenhagen, and I hope that we shall be able to do so.

Paul Flynn: As this is a topical debate, let me begin by quoting from a document that has been published in the last few hours under the title "The Road to 2010". It contains a policy for nuclear proliferation. It proposes:
	"A new Nuclear Centre of Excellence in the UK to promote wider access to civil nuclear power... to make a reality of the right of all countries... to the peaceful use of nuclear power."
	That will cause great celebrations in Iran and many other parts of the world. I should have thought that, if we had learned anything, it would be that the proliferation of nuclear power can lead inevitably and very easily to danger. There are no secrets left about nuclear processes, and processes for making nuclear bombs. However, we as a country decided this morning to spend a further £20 million of taxpayers' money on nuclear subsidy.
	We already have a bill of £93 billion to clear up the mess of old nuclear. It was said that that would be achieved without public subsidy, but within months we are paying a public subsidy. We have indemnified the consortium that has taken over against any accident that might take place, and that money would be paid by the taxpayer. The Americans who have the contract said they would not take it over unless they had a guarantee that the taxpayer would pay the bill for an accident that could cost billions of pounds, so there is another subsidy there. Again, in spite of the promises from the nuclear industry that it would not have any subsidies, immediately voices have been raised to say that it cannot compete on level terms with genuine renewables.
	It is extraordinary that both main parties have become bewitched by the pied piper of nuclear power. I greatly admire the previous Conservative spokesman. I served with him on the Environmental Audit Committee. That Committee produced an objective and scientific report that dismissed nuclear power as an unobtainable objective economically—that is not taking into account other problems. It has never worked, and it never will work, on economic grounds, as we were reminded yesterday by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. Every nuclear power station in this country has been late; it has never been built on time and it has always been vastly over budget.
	Nuclear power is also unreliable in practice. It works for only 80 per cent. of the time. People complain about wind power not being reliable, but neither is nuclear power. We are now exporting electricity from Britain to France because of the French problems with their nuclear power stations. The problems are the result of climate change because there is not enough water in the rivers to cool the power stations. Therefore, this source of power is dangerous and its proliferation could cost the world, but we are now going to promote it to other countries. The paper says that every country has the right to have their own nuclear power, and we are spending taxpayers' money to promote that. This is truly, deeply mad.

Paul Flynn: There are many mysteries in the personality of the French people that I do not understand. Many of them are entirely impenetrable to me, but I have raised this point many times in my frequent visits to Brittany. Because the French have not done that, however, there is no reason why we should not. As the paper said yesterday, we have an immense possibility for using tidal power. The paper said that half the opportunities for tidal power in the whole of Europe are around our coasts. They are not all tidal either. There is also the flow of water between Guernsey and France; an immense amount of energy is flowing there 24 hours a day. It will carry on eternally and it is untapped. If we could utilise this power with a range of barrages around our coast—or tidal lagoons, or just simple mills—we could have surges of electricity that would come when the tide flows around our coast at different times. We could tap that, too; when the surge of power comes in the early hours of the morning, we could use it to pump water up to the top of hills and downs and allow electricity to be generated for peak times.
	The geographical position of these islands presents us with by far the best opportunity, and we should be taking it instead of throwing our money away at the nuclear power industry. Billions upon billions of pounds are being thrown at it—there was another £20 million this morning, just like that. There was also £93 billion for clearing things up, and uncountable billions to build nuclear power stations. In contrast, our investment in tidal energy and other marine energy is in sums of £60 million here and £50 million there. We have a huge opportunity that we are neglecting because of the conversion of both our main parties to supporting nuclear power for no rational reason.
	We should look at our priorities again, as this is the way to solve our global warming problems, which we all agree it is important to do. We must look at the power of the tide. It will go on for ever. It is clean and does not produce a legacy of poisoned fuel, and it will add greatly to amenity features in the places where it is operated. The future should be tidal. It certainly should not be nuclear.

Peter Lilley: That may well be the case and that is up to the Scots, but I am referring to the figures the Government have given out for the United Kingdom, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to ignore the rest of the world, let alone the rest of the UK.
	The Secretary of State called for the maximum consensus in this House behind his policies. I have to say that all my experience in, and observation of the history of, this House leads me to think that its greatest mistakes have invariably been made when both Front Benches have been united, and even worse mistakes have been made when the whole House has been united. That is the case from Munich through the Child Support Agency to weapons of mass destruction. It is when the House failed to exercise effectively its adversarial functions that we have made the greatest mistakes. A widespread consensus invariably results in a reluctance to face up to inconvenient facts and difficult problems; instead, the House indulges in self-congratulation on its common good intentions. Good intentions are fine, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that the road to Copenhagen is paved with good inventions. A lot of convenient facts—or factoids—have been invented to try to encourage us towards a destination that is probably unrealistic, and which we will undoubtedly not reach.

Peter Lilley: Politicians, having committed themselves to the idea of climate change, invent the reasons to justify it, and there is a tendency to demonise anybody who dissents from the consensus. I make a point of doing so, because I think it is helpful to have an alternative view expressed in this House. Outside the Chamber a very polarised debate is taking place, on blogs and elsewhere, between the alarmists—they are very well represented in this Chamber, and they believe that almost all the global warming observed over the past century is a result of man-made greenhouse gases and that the future will be even worse—and the deniers, who argue that as climate change occurred long before man appeared on the planet, the current climate change and that which we have observed cannot be down to man's efforts. I entirely accept that that is a complete non sequitur; the fact that man did not contribute in the past does not mean that he may not be contributing now or may not contribute in the future.
	My view is, uncharacteristically, moderate and seems to take the middle way. It is somewhere in between the two positions, because although I believe that some of the heating that we have observed has been due to man's effort, I doubt whether it all has. I was a physicist in my youth, so I entirely accept that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere serves to keep us warmer than we otherwise would be, that a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will, of itself, increase the surface temperature by about 1° C and that there are all sorts of feedback effects, notably the inclusion of water vapour, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas. However, the models that are then used to suggest that there will be multiple effects far greater than the direct effect of an increase in CO2 are unreliable. I used to produce econometric models, so I know that in all these models based on finding a correlation between two things, the only certain correlation one observes is between the prejudices of the person producing the model and the outcomes of that model; it is no surprise that most models produce the result that they do.
	I am happy that we should seek ways of insuring against the costs that might result from climate change arising from increased greenhouse gases, provided the cost of insurance is not disproportionate to the benefits of mitigating climate change. I also welcome moves to more secure and diverse sources of energy for this country, but I believe that the claims that the scientific evidence is overwhelming and that the debate is ended are incorrect and exaggerated, that the damages supposed to result from rises in the global average temperature are exaggerated and that the cost of mitigating that rise in temperature is almost certainly understated.
	I wish to say a bit about the science, and the argument that it is settled and that there is no dissent. As far as I know, only one comprehensive study has been undertaken on the views of climate scientists and it was carried out by Professor von Storch. He received replies from 570 climate scientists—members of the international bodies of climate science across the world—to his asking them whether they agreed or disagreed that climate change is mostly the result of man-made causes. More than half of those scientists—56 per cent.—said that they agreed, but 14 per cent. were unsure and 30 per cent. disagreed. So if the Government were to say that a majority of scientists agree with them, that would be correct, but to suggest that none disagrees is simply factually incorrect. In any case, it is absurd to suggest that science is carried out by majority opinion. When Einstein was told that 100 German physicists had—probably as a result of Herr Goebbels getting them together—signed a statement saying that his theory of relativity was wrong, he said that if it were wrong it would require only one scientist to prove that. The fact that uncertainty remains means that the science is still unsettled. Yesterday—I think that was when this was—the Prime Minister said that the science is irrefutable. If a theory is irrefutable it is not scientific. Scientific theories must be capable of refutation. If a theory is not capable of refutation, we are dealing with metaphysics rather than science.
	Over the past decade, despite the predictions of the climate models and the fact that the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere has exceeded expectations, no global warming has taken place—indeed a slight global cooling has occurred. I accept that one decade of the absence of global warming and of a slight decline is not sufficient to refute the notion that CO2 is having a substantial impact. However, I must ask the Government a question: how many decades will be required before they are prepared at least to consider the fact that their climate models may be somewhat exaggerated? Clearly there must be other factors that they are not taking into account, which are at least masking and suppressing the global warming over the past decade. Of course, those factors might have been operating in the opposite direction in the previous three decades, when we did observe global heating.
	The second issue is that of damaging climate change. I believe that the Secretary of State—although it might have been the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—proudly told us that it was an historic moment when the G8 agreed to define a 2° C rise in average global temperature as "damaging climate change", that that would be caused by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increasing from the current 380 parts per million to 450 parts per million and that we were to prevent that from happening. The idea that we have got our fingers on a global dimmer switch and we can determine the average temperature is an example of human hubris that has rarely been matched in this Chamber.
	It is also rarely stated that when the Government talk about a 2° C increase, they are not talking about an increase from now; they are talking about an increase of that order from the early 18th century—from before the industrial revolution. We have already had about two thirds of that increase in CO2 since then.  [Interruption.] Well, the increase has been from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million, which is an increase of 100 parts per million out of a rise of 170 parts per million. The impact is logarithmic, so that should account for about 64 per cent., or about two thirds, of the global heating that would be expected to be induced by a rise to 450 parts per million. Thus, a rise of 1.3 ° C ought already to have appeared, whereas in fact only a rise of 0.8° C has done so. That leaves us with a rise of about a further 1.2 ° C to occur.
	The Government are saying that a further one and a bit degrees centigrade rise in the average temperature of the world would be hugely damaging and that we must be prepared to sacrifice billions of pounds to avoid it. I pointed out the other day that the average temperature in Cornwall is more than 2° C higher than the average temperature in the north-east of England. Is it really dangerous for someone to move from Newcastle to Cornwall? Would it be dangerous if the north-east of England became as warm as Cornwall? Would it be dangerous if Cornwall became as warm as the Loire valley? That is what a 2° C increase—let alone a 1° C increase—would involve. It is not such a big deal. I accept that for poor and tropical countries a rise of that order is more serious, whoever causes it, and we ought to be prepared to help them. However, we ought not to kid ourselves that we are really facing Armageddon if this happens.
	Finally, the Secretary of State said in his statement the other day that the impact of these measures on household budgets would be 6 per cent. In his White Paper, he says that the cost of renewables would put electricity budgets up by 15 per cent., on top of the 15 per cent. increase already, and that gas prices and household budgets would increase by 23 per cent. I cannot find the quantification of the measures that he suggests will reduce the impact on households—

Joan Walley: I do not accept that the issue is whether we should do something about global warming. We are on the way towards the most important international agreement at Copenhagen and we should give every ounce of support to the Secretary of State, who is taking such a leadership role. Parliament should back all the work that he is doing now and will do at the international negotiating table at Copenhagen. I ask him to use the various reports that the Environmental Audit Committee has produced to highlight the detailed areas where we need to make progress quickly.
	I was pleased that the Secretary of State referred to deforestation, the importance of stopping the illegal logging of timber, and how the deforestation agenda can be incorporated into the talks and agreements on climate change.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) said, the science is really important. The important question on some of the modelling that has been done is whether it is coupled or uncoupled. The detail on that point is in some of the evidence that the Committee has received, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look at it urgently, so that we go to Copenhagen with the best and most reliable science.
	Despite what we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), evidence given to the Committee suggests that we have only a 50:50 chance of not exceeding a temperature increase of 2° C. Anything over that increase would be catastrophic. We therefore have a higher chance of exceeding 3°, which is why it is so important that we get the science right.
	It is no good doing everything that we can at Copenhagen to get the right policies if we then come back and do not do as we say. I commend the Government on the series of statements this week, including those on renewables and the low-carbon economy. We especially need to make progress towards the latter, given the state of the recession and the urgent need to restore the economy to the best position that we can.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, the nuclear issue is important. The Government need to back winners and put their money on the renewable agenda, so that we can harness all the wind and water power that we have in huge quantities all around the British Isles. It is vital that this agenda is mainstreamed into everything that the Treasury and other Departments do. The Treasury should have a scientific adviser at the heart of its policy making, to influence the green book so that infrastructure expenditure provides not stranded assets, but assets that help us to deliver on the international agreement that I hope we will reach in Copenhagen.
	It is also important that we stress the education agenda. All too often, only the initiated take part in these debates. We should be on a war footing on climate change and, so that everybody—including my constituents and those of every hon. Member—understands what they need to do in their industry or Department, we need to make information widely available. Last night, I visited St. Mary's school, which—like Burnwood school and other schools in Stoke-on-Trent—is attempting to become an eco-school. It is the young people who will show us how we can turn this agenda around and come forward with solutions for our future.
	Finally, I ask the Secretary of State to include parliamentarians constructively in the run-up to Copenhagen.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) for keeping her comments brief, and I shall do likewise to enable other hon. Members to speak. However, I have to tell the hon. Lady that I am more in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) than I am with her.
	First, I wish to thank my researchers Alex and Andrew for providing the background detail for my comments this afternoon. The Copenhagen climate change conference is an update on Kyoto, so that the world can unite and make a greener planet. However, there is much contradictory evidence about what is causing global warming. It is like rolling a set of dice—the outcome is uncertain. Some 1,000 years ago, for instance, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to have vineyards there, but today it is covered with ice. That contradicts the idea that global warming has been going on for ever and a day—

Nigel Evans: Like other hon. Members, I will make a short contribution to an important debate in order to allow others to contribute.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) about the importance of the youngsters and their role in this issue. A week ago, I visited Brabins endowed school in Chipping to see the school presented with its fifth environmental flag. The children, supported by their teachers, parents and the community generally, have their own garden to grow their own food. They also make promises about what they will do at home to achieve a more sustainable future. That is the crux of the matter, because whether people agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) that the science does not support the argument—so why do anything about it—or are totally convinced that something is happening and we need to do something about it now, no one can argue with the need for sustainability.
	Fossil fuels will run out in the foreseeable future, whatever happens, and therefore it is only common sense to move towards a sustainable future. That means that there must be more research into and development of renewables. Some of us went to see that lovely electric sports car the "Lightning" in the House of Commons a few weeks ago. It can now do 198 miles before it needs recharging, and I hope that it will be developed and manufactured in the UK. Fortunately, President Obama wants a lot more research and development in battery technology. That is long overdue, and we need to encourage more to be done in that regard in the UK as well, in liaison with a number of other countries.
	The hybrid vehicles now in production are far better than they were a few years ago. In the one that I tried the other day braking recharges the battery, and the car also has an indicator about how environmentally friendly one's driving is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) asked whether it was advisable to move from the north down to Cornwall because of the 2° difference in temperature, but the only danger would arise if one were to travel in the vehicle that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) owns. It is a biofuel car, but it is powered by the wrong biofuel.
	We know that more research and development needs to be done in biofuels, which in the future may well be an answer to the depletion of fossil fuels. For instance, there is an algae-based biofuel that is both much more productive and less damaging to the environment. Taken together, those two properties are superb, but what we do not want is the deforestation that the Secretary of State talked about. That deforestation is done to grow the crops to provide the fuels that people burn in their vehicles, so in some cases the environment is damaged more than it is aided. We therefore need to get the right balance on biofuels.
	Conservation is also important in respect of travel. I know that Al Gore flies around the world telling the rest of us not to, but we have to recognise that many young people are going to want to travel. We cannot deny them the opportunity to discover what the rest of the world has to offer, but travel can be done in a more environmentally friendly way. Again, we need to encourage more research and development, and investment, in planes—such as the mixed-fuel one that Virgin revealed the other day—that use environmentally friendly fuels.
	The Airbus A380—and the Boeing 787, when it eventually leaves the ground—will be far more environmentally friendly aircraft, but we must also ensure that aeroplanes have more people on them when they take off. That will mean that there will be no phantom take-offs just to maintain the slots at airports. We must make it absolutely certain that aviation is environmentally friendly.
	I want to end with a plea. We mentioned China, and we know that India is developing as well. As they grow, both countries must play a full part in doing their bit in ensuring that theirs are low-carbon environments. There is a lot of poverty in both countries, so they have to grow: we do not want to deny them the opportunity to develop as we did in the past, but they must learn the lessons of our experience when it comes to destroying the planet.
	To that end, and where we can, we must share technology with countries such as China and India so that they can benefit from the investments that we have already made. However, as China in particular adopts renewable sources to power the energy that it needs, we must encourage it to let some of the contracts to companies in Europe. Renewable sources include wind farms, hydro technology and other approaches, but we in Europe have the expertise that developing countries need. We need to have an opportunity to share that knowledge with them.
	When it comes to nuclear power, again it is clear that we are talking about a mix. Such power generation must be part of the mix, although we must ensure that it is produced in an environmentally friendly and safe manner. We have dragged our feet for far too long on nuclear power, but nothing would be a greater disaster to industry in this country than if we were forced to turn the lights off in two or three years' time simply because we got it wrong.

John Gummer: First, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is right, we will do no harm trying to clear up global warming because that is necessary anyway to meet the needs caused by the shortage of resources and so on. If he is wrong, he will lead the country and the world into dire disaster. So we must ignore him—as I have had to do for the past 12 years!
	Secondly, we need nuclear power because we cannot leave anything aside in this battle. Thirdly, the Secretary of State must be pressed constantly on these issues. If he is going to be believed in Copenhagen, the first thing that he has to do is to introduce measures at home. That is why I press him yet again on hydrofluorocarbons, and why I demand that he does the things—
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A) .

David Miliband: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	The military operation in Afghanistan has now lasted for nearly eight years and has claimed more lives than the conflict in Iraq. It is important that we regularly discuss the situation there, and that is why the Government have scheduled this debate today.
	Whatever the divisions in the debate, I know that in one regard the House is as united as the people of Wootton Bassett were on Tuesday. We are united in the belief that each and every one of our military personnel is a credit to the country, that each and every one represents a personal story of courage and bravery beyond the call of duty and, as we saw on Tuesday, that each and every loss is a source of raw grief that should never be forgotten.
	Today sees the funeral Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, who was well known to a number of right hon. and hon. Members in this House. I pay tribute today to all of our soldiers, to the diplomats and aid workers who work alongside them, to our allies and partners who also operate in such difficult and dangerous circumstances, and to the many Afghan and Pakistani soldiers and civilians who have lost their lives in the defence of their country.
	The defining mission in Afghanistan is simply stated: to ensure that, with al-Qaeda having been driven out of Afghanistan, it cannot come back under the safe umbrella of renewed Taliban rule.
	The Prime Minister set out this mission in this House in December 2007 and in April 2009. It is the mission agreed by all NATO countries, which made this vow at the Bucharest summit last year:
	"Neither we nor our Afghan partners will allow extremists and terrorists...to regain control of Afghanistan or use it as a base for terror".
	The mission is also at the heart of the US strategy document published in February. In President Obama's words:
	"And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban—or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged—that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."
	The purpose of rehearsing this unity of mission is twofold—first, to underline the self-interest as well as the realism of our objectives and, secondly, to emphasise that this is a shared operation. The strategy is shared, so are the resources, and I will return to that point later.

David Miliband: That is a good point. We have discussed so-called "burden sharing" on a number of occasions in this House. There are three aspects to the matter—the numbers of people put into Afghanistan, where they are put, and how much civilian resource is devoted to complement the work that they do. We support the hon. Gentleman's call for burden sharing, and the increased number of Polish, German, French and Australian personnel deployed since we last debated this issue here is noteworthy and should be recorded. That is not to say that the drive for burden sharing is over, and since we last talked in this House there has of course been the very large increase in the US contribution. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the burden needs to be shared, but there are some encouraging signs. A number of the 41 nations are doing a very large amount of the work, and we need to continue to make the case that more should join us, on both the military and the civilian sides.

Menzies Campbell: Surely the risk is that, because the burden is not being shared properly, a two-tier NATO might emerge, in which some countries are willing to face the mud—or, in this case, the sand and the bullets—but others are not. Some countries send their troops to operate under NATO command, but others send theirs subject to such caveats that their effectiveness is very substantially prejudiced.

David Miliband: I like to think of the mission, which I have described, then the strategy and then the resources to address that. I shall address his question about strategy in my following points. There is a widely-shared basic agreement in this House that the strategy needs to be a military one and include governance, development and Afghan-Pakistan co-operation. As I shall show when I talk about governance, the reintegration of Afghans who are currently fighting with the Taliban but who are not ideologically committed to al-Qaeda is an important part of our policy. I absolutely assure him that I shall address that in some detail.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall rattle through my speech at a faster rate.
	Progress in the mission that I have described has four key elements that deserve special mention, the first of which is military. The goal is clear: for the Afghans to be able to defend themselves. However, until they can, we must help them, often on foot, but always in danger. Offensive military action, of the kind that I shall describe when I detail Operation Panther's Claw, is needed to root out the insurgents who continue to pose a major threat to the legitimate Afghan Government. Meanwhile, training, mentoring and development of Afghan security forces—2,000 people a month are currently joining the national army—is a core building block of a sustainable Afghan state.
	The second key element is governance. Effective, legitimate Afghan governance, working with the confidence of local communities, to help them to shape their own future, with consistency, not corruption, at its heart, is the best antidote to the insurgency. I shall say a word about the elections later, but for now it is vital to be clear that effective governance requires space for all Afghans to have a political voice, including many of the Pashtuns who currently fight alongside the Taliban for protection or political power, but who actually belong inside the political system. That reintegration, or reconciliation, about which I talked in February, is not an alternative to military pressure, but its vital counterpart. It also needs to be led by the Afghan Government and supported by us, with the development, by Afghans, of systems of justice and dispute resolution that respond to the desire for predictable and non-corrupt justice, to which the Taliban so often—and so often brutally—respond.
	The third key element is development. If the Afghan Government are to keep the support of the Afghan population, they need to respond to its needs and deliver meaningful economic and social progress. In the end, the Afghans want health care, electricity, clean water, jobs and economic development, alongside fair justice. In all those spheres, they need our help. The fourth key element is the link between Afghanistan and Pakistan, because the militants flow freely across the 1,600 mile border between the two countries. I shall not dwell at length on this today, but a comprehensive approach based on security, governance and development is vital in Pakistan too. In the past two months, Pakistan's fight has entered a critical phase, as I saw for myself last week. In May, in response to Taliban incursions into Swat and Buner provinces, the Pakistani military launched a major offensive and has now re-established its authority in the Swat valley, Buner, Lower Dir and Malakand, at the heavy price of several hundred Pakistani soldiers and some 2.4 million displaced people who are now beginning to return home. The military focus is now turning to Waziristan, including the leader of Pakistan's Taliban Baitullah Mehsud, who has claimed responsibility for a series of terrorist attacks against the Pakistani state. He is close to al-Qaeda and poses a dangerous threat to Pakistani and regional stability.
	As we hold this debate today, we have for the first time mutually reinforcing strategies on either side of the Durand line. There is also co-operation between the international security assistance force, and Afghan and Pakistani forces across the Durand line, as I saw for myself in a joint operation centre at the Khyber Pass in April

David Miliband: I said that it had been driven out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. The important thing is that we know that Taliban rule provided an umbrella and incubator for al-Qaeda. We also know that the 1,600 mile—2,600 km—border is porous in many places, which allows the flow across that border. I think that this is an ongoing struggle, until Afghan governance can be established on the Afghan side and the writ of the Pakistani authorities can run on the Pakistani side.

Paul Flynn: Has the Secretary of State observed over the past eight years that every surge of troops has resulted in a surge of targets for the Taliban, and a surge of deaths? Only seven British soldiers had died up to 2006, only two them in battle. Can he not see that the reason why the Taliban are killing our soldiers is that they see us as aliens, the Ferengi, in their country, and that they want to die—in many cases, it is their dearest wish—in a jihad? We have given our soldiers an impossible, suicidal task.

David Miliband: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a significant increase in the number of helicopters being tailored for the Afghan mission. I also return to a point that I made: NATO has many hundreds of helicopters available in Afghanistan—we do not go into precise numbers—but they are a shared resource for all members of the coalition. That is an important point as we discuss how equipment is used to support our troops.

Peter Lilley: rose—

David Miliband: We are taking our own measures to increase the number of helicopters because— [Interruption.] No, it is because it is obvious that helicopters are an important part of the battle plan.  [Interruption.] No, we wanted to increase it by 60 per cent., and we wanted to increase capability as well. Helicopters are a useful and important resource. I think that there is no division in this House about the utility and importance of helicopters in Afghanistan. However, the tragic truth is that the soldiers on foot patrol in Sangin last Thursday were doing a job that was necessary, and they could not have been replaced by helicopters or other vehicles. That is important.

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He is being admirably brief and very generous in taking interventions. May I report to him that when the Defence Committee took evidence on the comprehensive approach last week, Lord Malloch-Brown, a Foreign Office Minister, made it clear that Ministers were still "on probation"—his words—in terms of the Government's delivery of the comprehensive approach? There is no Cabinet secretariat for the comprehensive approach, no Cabinet Sub-Committee, and no sub-committee of the Ministerial Committee on National Security, International Relations and Development. How are the Government actually delivering the comprehensive approach, when Whitehall is simply not geared to deliver it?

David Miliband: There are two very clear answers to that. First, there is the Cabinet Committee structure, including Committees right up to the one that the Prime Minister chairs. Secondly and more importantly, however, as I said to the hon. Gentleman in our last such debate, the biggest proof of the joining up is the combined military-civilian mission in Helmand. That is where the joining up is most important; where civilian and military staff need to work closer together; and where the civilian and military staff need to work with the Afghan people. The proof of the joining up is in the area where it needs to make a difference, and in the end that is not in London, but in Helmand province.
	Over the next few months, there are some critical milestones. In Afghanistan, as we try to build the capacity and legitimacy of its Government, the immediate priority is the elections on 20 August. Our objective is that these should be as credible, secure and inclusive as possible, not only because they will be the first Afghan-led elections since the 1970s, but because they will determine the political direction of the country for the next five years. Given the security and political situation in which Afghanistan finds itself today, none of that will be easy, but we are working with the UN, the EU, the US and the rest of the international community to give the Afghan people the best chance that we can of them expressing their will.
	That is why the British Government have agreed to additional troop deployments—to help those who want to vote to do so safely—alongside international and Afghan election observers. All the time, we must remember that our aim is to split the insurgency. The Taliban foot-soldiers must be convinced that the Afghan Government will be in charge in the years to come and can provide the protection and security that they want.
	As the objective of our mission is our own safety, the ultimate test is our own safety, but there are important proxies for progress. NATO forces have trained 90,000 army personnel and 80,000 Afghan police, and they are now working closely alongside the international troops and civilian staff. The number of poppy-free provinces jumped from six to 13 in 2007, and this year it rose again to 18, representing more than half the provinces in the country. Cultivation was down by 19 per cent. last year.
	School attendance or basic health care are not the reasons why we are conducting military operations in Afghanistan, but they are down-payments to the people of Afghanistan, and the increases in the number of students, from 1 million in 2001 to 6 million today, and in the number of people living in districts with access to basic health care, from 10 per cent. of the country to more than 80 per cent. today, are the building blocks of legitimacy and support from the Afghan people.
	The Afghan people and Government do not want the Taliban to come back. With our help, they can be prevented from doing so. That is in their interest and in ours, and that is what we must achieve.

William Hague: Since we last held a debate about Afghanistan, on 5 February, 41 British soldiers have lost their lives on operations there, and, as the House will recall, three of those recently killed were just 18-years-old. It is fitting for us to remember today, as the Foreign Secretary did in his speech, their sacrifices and their families, and to pay tribute to their selfless courage. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Defence Secretary, put it very well the other day, when he said:
	"We are fortunate that in a society without conscription we have people courageous and committed enough to put their lives at risk voluntarily for the security of their country and their fellow citizens."
	As Members of Parliament, we should have the humility to recognise that the deployment of the British armed forces overseas ultimately rests on the consent and will of the British people, who make the sacrifices necessary to maintain those efforts; and it is therefore vital that the British public understand why we are in Afghanistan and support our aims there. That is why the recent public concern about British fatalities, and the questions of resourcing, should be of serious concern to all of us and, particularly, to Ministers.
	We have occasional debates, as the Foreign Secretary said, and this one was announced on Monday after the recent casualties. However, I put it to Ministers that the Government would have done well to accept the proposal that we have consistently made over the past three years for regular, quarterly reports to Parliament on our objectives in Afghanistan, the benchmarks by which progress is measured and the success or otherwise in meeting those objectives and benchmarks. The Government speak occasionally of significant progress in Afghanistan, but the public and Parliament see little formal basis for such assessments other than assertions by Ministers. There would be greater public and parliamentary understanding of the situation if we had that regular updating of our objectives, a restatement of strategy, a reminder of the reasons for being there and a regular assessment of progress. It is not too late for the Government to institute such a quarterly arrangement, which, as I say, we have called for now for three years. Maintaining public support and understanding of our military and political efforts in Afghanistan is an important responsibility of government.
	It is vital, too, that we are clear about what we are trying to do, and the Foreign Secretary was clear about that in his speech. We went into Afghanistan not out of choice, but out of necessity—to deny al-Qaeda the use of Afghanistan as a launch pad for training and planning attacks on western targets. It was a collective national purpose that was accepted by all parts of the House, and the consequences of failure are so serious for the whole region and the wider world that we have to do our utmost to make it work. So, although there have been what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described yesterday as sometimes "lofty" and "vague" objectives over recent years, the Foreign Secretary has moved the Government towards defining our objectives in a more tightly drawn fashion. He said on the radio on Saturday that our objective is
	"to ensure that Afghanistan can not again become an incubator for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on us."
	He said something similar to that just now. In our last such debate, I put it that our purpose is
	"to permit the people of Afghanistan to decide their own future in a way that enhances their security and livelihoods without presenting a danger to the rest of the world."—[ Official Report, 5 February 2009; Vol. 487, c.1044.]
	I think that that is a fair assessment of what we are trying to do.

John Reid: rose—

William Hague: That is an accurate reflection of our objectives, but the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) was also right to point out that we have not achieved them yet. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, so the issue before us is how we go on to achieve them.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader—

Gisela Stuart: rose—

William Hague: That is an important point—it is indeed a NATO operation. As has been shown in this debate, many of us would like some other NATO members to make a bigger military contribution; all parties in the House have called for that for years. The hon. Lady is right about that.
	I want to finish the point about proper assessment and the benchmarking of progress. In his statement in April, the Prime Minister said that in September, after the Afghan elections, there would be a review of the appropriate troop levels and the United Kingdom effort in Afghanistan, and I hope that there will be such an assessment in the round. One area on which it should focus is whether the additional powers given to the United Nations special representative for Afghanistan in March last year have resulted in improved civil-military co-ordination on the ground; such co-ordination will be essential as Operation Panther's Claw makes progress.
	As things stand, Parliament has few means of monitoring progress on that essential area. To cite another example, it also has few means of monitoring the number of successful reconstruction projects completed in areas of UK responsibility. If there is to be a review in September, I hope that it will restate for the nation clear, tightly drawn, realistic objectives and restate and set out more clearly a strategy that includes sufficient attention to building Afghan capabilities, so that people in Britain and other NATO countries know that their troops will not be in Afghanistan for ever. I hope that that strategy will be agreed by all the principal allies now engaged in Afghanistan.
	I want to press Ministers on three aspects of the Afghan campaign, and I shall try to do so briefly. They are troop numbers, helicopter capability and the follow-up to Operation Panther's Claw. It follows logically from having the right strategy that we should be confident that we have the right number of troops in Afghanistan to meet our military objectives and that those troops are properly resourced. An extremely damaging perception has crept in over recent years. Ministers' public assurances that our forces in Afghanistan will be given whatever they need are not upheld in reality. In the House this week, the Prime Minister said:
	"I repeat that I have been reassured by commanders on the ground and at the top of the armed services that we have the manpower that we need for current operations."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 29.]
	But on a visit to Afghanistan this week, the Chief of the General Staff said that the Army needed more "boots on the ground" to secure areas and win the confidence of the Afghan people. That echoes his reported remarks in March that 2,000 extra troops were needed in Afghanistan and that elements of 12 Mechanised Brigade had been earmarked for Afghanistan. In contrast, the Prime Minister announced on 29 April a temporary increase of 700 in UK forces. In the debate in February, we asked Ministers to bear in mind the overstretch of the armed forces when evaluating any request for additional troops—not that we were aware of any of the military advice that was then being given. That overstretch remains a serious factor.
	It has been suggested in the press that the Defence Secretary's predecessor supported the deployment of 2,000 extra troops and that the United States was expecting the United Kingdom to deploy them. Indeed, it is said that of four options presented to Ministers, the deployment of 2,000 was clearly preferred among military commanders—something that the Government have never confirmed in public and of which the House has never been informed. However, the Prime Minister and Chancellor opted instead for an increase of 700, and for a tightly limited period.
	When the Defence Secretary winds up the debate today, I hope that he will feel able to tell the House exactly what happened—what options were put in front of the Prime Minister and what criteria were used to reject the military advice to send 2,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Ministers might have had valid reasons for rejecting the request. They might have decided to reject it because of the overstretch of the forces, because they thought that the military case had not been properly argued or because they did not want to accede to the request without other NATO countries increasing their forces. One can imagine reasons why they might make the decision, but it is important for them to explain those reasons frankly to the country, so that we can evaluate the policies of the Government on this matter. Ministers should explain the reasons for their decision.
	In earlier debates, I have made the point that there should be a unity of command in a military sense for NATO forces in Afghanistan, but there should also be a clear unity of command within the Government in Britain, so that everyone can be clear about which Minister is primarily responsible for our strategy in Afghanistan. General Dannatt said this week:
	"We've got to think through the way that we operate, the resources we've got, the numbers we've got...to make sure that we're giving ourselves the...best chance of succeeding".
	That suggests that these things have not been thought through so far.
	The House and the country need to know who in the Government is in charge of the war on a day-to-day basis and who makes sure all the time that the issues raised by General Dannatt are thought through. If no Minister is in charge of Government strategy in the round on a day-to-day basis, should that situation not be put right by the Prime Minister?

Nicholas Soames: May I read to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to a parliamentary question in which I asked him who is responsible for determining the UK's strategy in Afghanistan? He said:
	"I accept responsibility for UK strategy in Afghanistan. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 29 April".—[ Official Report, 4 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 639W.]

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

William Hague: As my hon. Friend will have gathered, I have a great deal of sympathy with that point. A situation such as this requires the regular sharing of all assessments, thoughts and knowledge by the senior Ministers involved—I did not know that that happened only once a month; if that is true, it should be far more often—and a particular Minister who is responsible for the day-to-day concerns of this campaign.
	Having covered troop numbers and ministerial direction, I want to ask Ministers about what has become the vexed public issue of helicopter numbers. Ministers have said repeatedly that that issue has been addressed, but it is hard to dispel the impression that that is not the case, particularly when only yesterday the Chief of the General Staff had to borrow a US helicopter to visit troops in Afghanistan. We recognise, of course, that up to 14 Merlin helicopters should be in service by the end of the year and that eight additional Chinook helicopters that are undergoing conversions should be available next year—although it is extraordinary that those Chinooks were delivered eight years ago and have not been in service in all that time. However, even if the numbers will be increased by the end of the year, that does not excuse the fact that now, while a major offensive operation is under way, not enough has already been done.
	In the Defence Committee report published today, its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), says:
	"It seems to us that operational commanders in the field today are unable to undertake potentially valuable operations because of the lack of helicopters for transportation around the theatre of operations."
	Just as worryingly, the summary of the report states:
	"Helicopter capability is being seriously undermined by the shortage of helicopters...capable of being deployed in support of operations overseas. We believe that the size of the fleet is an issue, and are convinced that the lack of helicopters is having adverse consequences for operations today and, in the longer term, will severely impede the ability of the UK Armed Forces to deploy."
	That is an extremely concerning finding by an all-party Select Committee in a unanimous report, and it merits a considered response from the Defence Secretary.

Paul Flynn: rose—

William Hague: I will not give away to the hon. Gentleman again, if he will forgive me, because other Members wish to speak.
	It is not as though this problem had not been noticed for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring, from within days of becoming shadow Secretary of State for Defence in December 2005, has been going on and on about the problem. He said on 15 December that year that the "most pressing requirements" were to do with
	"shortfalls in the helicopter lift capability that is essential to our activity in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."—[ Official Report, 15 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1467.]
	In October 2007, he told the House:
	"At a time when our troops are facing a shortage of lift capacity in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that decision was astonishingly complacent".—[ Official Report, 9 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 208.]
	He was referring to the decision to reduce the helicopter budget by £1.4 billion. He has been warning about the matter for many years, and it is not as though it had suddenly become evident that it is a problem. The Government's performance on this matter really has not been satisfactory, and it is no wonder that there is widespread criticism across the media and across the country of what they have done with regard to helicopters. People deserve a better explanation, and I hope that they will get it at the end of the debate.
	The third issue on which I wish to press Ministers is the follow-up to Operation Panther's Claw. We have become familiar with a cycle in Afghanistan that is at the root of many of our difficulties. Territory is won by valiant armed forces after fierce fighting and the Taliban are driven out, but that is not followed by a swift wave of co-ordinated development, delivery of services and embedding of alternative livelihoods. That is not only because the international aid agencies are unable to work effectively in insecure environments but because the overall reconstruction effort in Afghanistan has been mired in duplication and confusion.
	General McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, recently said that the strategy was
	"to try to protect the people by getting amongst the people: what we call shape, clear, hold, and build. But the idea is that after we clear an area from insurgents, we'll hold it with security forces—Afghan and American—and then we'll start development projects. That's the 'build.'"
	I hope that Ministers will explain at the end of the debate whether they are confident that while UK and US forces are clearing territory, the succeeding two elements of the strategy are this time definitely in place. They are absolutely fundamental to its success. Our armed forces are giving their all, and in many cases giving their lives, and they will be doing so in vain unless those two requirements follow on from their operations.
	The Prime Minister said on Monday that as British forces continue the operation:
	"Behind them will come Afghan forces, whose numbers I want to see raised very substantially over the next few weeks."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 28.]
	He is quite right to want to see them raised, but that implies that there are nowhere near enough of them at the moment. It seems urgent that agreement be reached with the Afghan Government about that element of the strategy, to ensure that the "hold" part follows the "clear", and that territory is held. I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell the House what indications are now emerging from the Afghan Government about their response to the Prime Minister's representations. Is it a difficulty that the Afghan army is usually sent on three-year deployments, and is there a case for more rapid turnover of some of its personnel on deployments into Helmand so that the numbers can be increased?
	Will the Defence Secretary also provide assurances that detailed plans are in place for the "build" phase after Operation Panther's Claw? There should be actual plans in place to ensure that any military gain is translated into an enduring shift in the political and security situation in Helmand province, and the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office should be working together intensively—hopefully they are—and working with our NATO allies to achieve that.
	I hope that the Defence Secretary will also clarify where our policy on dealing with opium production in Helmand now stands. This country has spent huge sums of money, hundreds of millions of pounds, on trying to eradicate that production, but the US envoy Richard Holbrooke said at the G8 meeting on Afghanistan:
	"Eradication is a waste of money...It might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar."
	In the light of that, where does policy now stand? There are British and American forces at work in Helmand, yet the policies of the British and American Governments on poppy production eradication seem entirely different. Surely they need to be brought into line if an effective policy is to be pursued.
	I hope that the Minister can also tell us about progress on building up the Afghan army. The Prime Minister has set out the objective of building it up to 134,000 by late 2011. That must be the right thing to do. The speed and scale are crucial—they, along with a non-corrupt and sorted-out police force, will ultimately allow Afghanistan to take care of itself.
	I want to make one point about Pakistan. Another lesson of the past is that insurgent groups melt across the border to regroup in Pakistan when they are hard pressed in Afghanistan. A significant difference is that the Pakistani army is engaged in intensive operations on its side of the border. We look to Ministers to confirm that co-ordination is taking place with the Pakistani authorities—I think, from the Foreign Secretary's speech, that that is happening—to ensure that the spillover effects of our operations in Helmand are anticipated and headed off, and insurgent groups are thus denied the breathing space that perpetuated the cycle of conflict in Afghanistan in the past.
	Conservative Members want the clear pursuit of tightly defined objectives in Afghanistan. We want the Government to explain their strategy and their achievement—or non-achievement—of objectives regularly to the House and the country. We want the Afghan strategy to be reviewed in the round after the elections and co-ordinated with that of the United States. We want unrelenting attention to be paid to what the nation—and many hon. Members—believe are deficiencies in the number of helicopters provided for our troops. If "clear, hold and build" is the approach, we want to know that, in current operations, in which so many of our soldiers are making every effort, the Government are confident that we can hold and build as well as clear. That is the road to eventual success.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jimmy Hood: I was in the States last week with the NATO Science and Technology Committee, visiting the Harvard JFK school of government in Boston and discussing topics that dealt with the priorities of President Obama's Administration and developments in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. We also examined scientific advances, such as soldier nanotechnologies and cyberterrorism, and talked to experts in non-proliferation issues.
	During that visit, we heard about the special operation that was taking place in central Helmand and the south of Helmand—Operation Panther's Claw. We heard the tragic news of the eight British soldiers and some American soldiers who had been killed in the operation, within hours of each other, in separate incidents. The numbness that the news created and the guilt that we all feel when our young men and women pay the ultimate price while putting their lives in harm's way were too awful for words.
	However, it is not good enough just to say how sorry we are—and we are; how proud we are—and we are; how the fallen did not die in vain—they did not; or that the mission is defensible—it is. The families, in coping with their grief and loss, need a bit more than that from Parliament. They need to know that their loss is not in vain and that the terror that threatens every man, woman and child in every community in our country will be defeated—and it will.
	Few in the House doubt the threat and the danger emanating from Afghanistan. Those who argue for our walking away and letting the Taliban return to power, with all that would mean for the security of our country and the rest of the western world, delude themselves if they believe that the terrorism we seek to defeat in Helmand would not come to the streets of London, Birmingham, Glasgow and other cities in our country. However, my support is not without criticism, particularly when I hear retired generals criticising their successors and/or the Government. We know them—they took the Queen's shilling when they were in charge, but they are now writing books, working for defence companies and being super-critics.
	Afghanistan was where 9/11 was planned and executed from. Bin Laden was in the mountains with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The No. 1 priority for us all should have been to catch and defeat al-Qaeda and stop the terrorism on our streets, but sadly it was not. I believed then, and I believe now, that Iraq was a disaster—it was a side issue and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack in New York. The world would be a different place today if we had taken on the Afghan mission then, as we should have. Nothing that I have heard since has changed my opinion on that.
	I return to where we are today and what we need to do. The Foreign Secretary talked about the importance of the NATO mission, which has been accepted across the House. The Brits and Americans are leading the coalition, but they are providing troops disproportionately to other NATO members. That is just not good enough. Those who argue for the enlargement of NATO would have to convince me that the current NATO members have proven their worth before we look to enlarge further. There are still NATO members that are not sharing the burden in this mission.
	I want to comment briefly on troop numbers, about which much has been said. Should we send 2,000 more troops, on top of the 9,000 troops who are already there? General Dannatt is reported as having requested 2,000 more troops. My view is that if he has argued the case for that, that case should be answered. If the soldiers on the ground are telling the politicians that they need 2,000 more troops, I would certainly support that request. Unlike the retired generals, I much prefer the views of the soldiers on the ground, and I would support them if they needed those troops.
	I want to finish my brief contribution by putting a marker down about troop protection and care for our veterans. I started my contribution by saying that I had talks in Boston last week on soldier nanotechnologies. There is fantastic proven research into soldier nanotechnologies taking place now—technologies that will save lives and give protection to our soldiers, but which, until now, had relevance only in Hollywood science fiction movies. That new technology will not be cheap, and it may be that our defence budgets will have to be reprioritised. However, the question must surely be: why should we spend billions of pounds on a nuclear deterrent that does not deter, when we can spend a fraction of the £30 billion to £60 billion needed for renewing Trident and completely change the risk to our armed forces, saving lives and protecting our soldiers from serious injury?
	I am a patron of a veterans' charity in my constituency called FEBA, or Forward Edge of the Battle Area. Troops returning from the battlefield need our support, and we have much to do to deliver on that moral duty to our armed forces. We read of statistics: for instance, 8 to 10 per cent. of soldiers who return to our community are in prison, while 25 per cent. of people sleeping rough on the streets are former members of our armed forces returning to our community. Sadly, many of our soldiers return with limbs missing and other serious disablements. However, many more return looking perfectly normal and re-enter our communities, and no one recognises the combat stress that they and many thousands more in our armed forces are suffering. Veterans' charities such as FEBA in my constituency are doing their best, but the Government, politicians and our communities in general need to do more.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) was quite right to remind us about the veterans who return from Iraq, Afghanistan or any other theatre of conflict bearing not physical but mental scars, and I hope that the charity in his constituency goes from strength to strength in supporting those soldiers.
	There remains a broad consensus in this House on key aspects of the policy on Afghanistan. The key objective of the mission in Afghanistan to stop al-Qaeda was, and is, correct. We are right to ask that that objective be tightly defined, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) did, and to ask exactly what it means in practice, but there is no doubt that counter-terrorism remains the stated reason for the war and, unlike in the case of Iraq, that is not being questioned by any of the main parties.
	There has also been consensus recently on the need to change the coalition's approach in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and President Obama has provided the leadership to make possible such undertakings as troop reinforcements and the civilian surge in Afghanistan, and the encouragement of the Government of Pakistan to deal with the Taliban in their country and to back those efforts with expert counter-insurgency support and development aid. We shall wait to see whether those changes are successful, but we agree that they are correct. However, we can question the resources that either America or, in our case, Britain has put behind those changes.
	There has of course been total consensus on our shared gratitude to, and admiration and deep respect for, our armed forces, and on the brilliant work of diplomats, UK civilians, aid organisations and others. We are filled with admiration for the great commitment that they show when carrying out their very difficult tasks. And of course we pay tribute to all those who have died. We remember them and their families in our hearts.
	Any consensus on matters as serious as these cannot be a cosy consensus; it has to be questioned hard. When our troops have been engaged in a war for eight years, it is surely incumbent on this House to ask the toughest questions about the strategy and the objectives. I do not want the Foreign Secretary to think that our questions are rhetorical. We do not pretend to have all the answers, but we do want to see signs that the Government have some of the answers, and that they are working hard and fast to find the rest of them.
	There is consensus on the broader aspects of the objective, but it has not always been clear how we would eventually achieve it. Sometimes, the objective has been described in rather vague language. I hope that notions of a western-style democracy and even of nation building have now been replaced. We need to focus on the counter-terrorism agenda more directly. That is not to say that we should give up other objectives for Afghanistan, particularly those relating to development. Those objectives for the international community should surely be there, whether or not our troops are there. We want to see Afghanistan's economy improve, its children educated, and so on, but that is not why we are fighting, and we need to be more honest about that.
	Even working to a more limited, better defined objective of tackling an al-Qaeda terrorist threat to London, New York and elsewhere that has been trained for and organised from Afghanistan and the Pakistan border, we need to ask how we will know when that objective has been achieved. How will we know when we have neutered every al-Qaeda cell in that vast mountainous expanse? The normal explanation is that, once there is stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan and once they have Governments who will themselves take on any terrorists that might threaten us, it will be mission accomplished—if one dare use that phrase.
	Indeed, a second part of our Afghanistan objectives, according to the Foreign Secretary, has increasingly become to provide a level of stability to prevent the dangers of a failed state, which Afghanistan clearly has been and Pakistan has at times threatened to become. That prompts further questions about the stability we are seeking. What is the level of stability at which a state is deemed to be functioning well enough to reassure us that terrorists will be expelled or arrested by that Government? I find it difficult to describe that point except in terms that make me wonder whether we could ever achieve it, particularly in Afghanistan.

Edward Davey: I absolutely accept that and I shall come back to the subject later.
	There are tough questions surrounding our views on the Taliban and on the intentions we think they have to foment and protect international terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda. Is the conservative Pashtun nationalism that characterises much of the Taliban inherently jihadist? The Taliban may be deeply unattractive and unpopular with many Afghans, but do they represent an inherent threat to us and other countries? Is there any intelligence assessment to tell us that the Taliban might agree to fight al-Qaeda themselves, if only ISAF—the international security assistance force—were to withdraw from the south of Afghanistan? How would that be viewed in relation to the objective of ensuring stability in Pakistan? These strike me as not unreasonable questions to ask. I am simply asking for far more honesty and rigour in how we approach the definition of our objectives.

Malcolm Rifkind: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the point that he—and, I think, most of the speeches so far—has concentrated on the situation in Afghanistan when we know that during the last couple of years there has been an enormous spread of the Taliban in Pakistan, which is also associated with al-Qaeda activity? Will he comment on the implications for the much more serious situation in Pakistan if our efforts in Afghanistan were to fail? If the Taliban, still supporting al-Qaeda, were able to resume control, that would not only be bad news in Afghanistan but make the task of the Pakistani Government infinitely more difficult, with far more ominous consequences for the rest of the world.

Edward Davey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say we need to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to support the Pakistan Government in achieving what we have asked them to do, but that still prompts the question of when sufficient stability will have arrived in southern Afghanistan to provide an acceptable level of stability in Pakistan. I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but it still raises other questions, which are precisely those I am seeking to raise.
	The political stability required to provide us with sufficient security from a repeat of al-Qaeda terrorist attacks might have quite a messy, chaotic and confused aspect. It may well be that that type of political stability could be provided by a state that is relatively weak. That is why I am trying to tease out from the Government whether they really expect a western-style strong democracy to provide the political stability we need or whether there is some other shape to it.
	I believe that we are sometimes in danger of suggesting that we have to defeat the Taliban totally and everywhere in order to win and then withdraw our troops, but that does not seem to me to be realistic. We need to focus for part of the time on how best to contain the Taliban with strengthened Governments in Kabul and in Pakistan.

Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points.
	When we think about our counter-terrorism strategy more widely I believe this point becomes clearer, because the terrorist threat we face in Britain does not uniquely live somewhere confined to the mountains either side of the Durand line. As we have seen, that threat can come from our own towns and cities and it can be fomented as much by our presence in a foreign Islamic country as by our absence. My guess—honestly, it can only be a guess—is that our deployment so far has been an effective part of our wider counter-terrorism strategy: by denying al-Qaeda its previous space, ISAF has made our citizens appreciably safer. However, the job of Ministers is not to guess but to ask for intelligence assessments to decide which strategy makes the country safer.
	I presume that the Foreign Secretary sees spine-chilling accounts from the intelligence services of how many al-Qaeda fighters are in the region, and how many hundreds or thousands of foreigners are travelling from all over the world to join their jihad against us. When was the last time that he or the Prime Minister assessed, against the evidence and intelligence, the progress of our policy on Afghanistan in achieving its central counter-terrorist objectives? Have the Government assessed whether Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF deployment is the best way to use our resources to make Britain and the world safer? Ultimately, can Ministers assure us that there is a serious remaining threat to Britain and the world posed by al-Qaeda fighters, if they are still there, and from the danger of a failed state in Afghanistan or Pakistan leading to the resurgence of an al-Qaeda threat? Unless that threat remains, is real, and can be tackled by our presence, the mission's objective is undermined—I do not believe that it is, but we need to be reassured that the Government are asking such questions of our intelligence services and military.
	On resources for our troops, the three charges made against the Government relate to helicopters, vehicles and troop numbers. On all accounts, the Government have at best been slow to address those issues, and at worse made serious errors.

Edward Davey: I do not have the full information to answer that question, because I do not know the full weapon capability of the Taliban, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) informs me from a sedentary position that they do not have the weapons that the Mujaheddin had against the Russians and their helicopters. I defer to others on the exact details of that.

Edward Davey: Indeed. Let us be clear that the role of helicopters is judged to be crucial by everyone across the House. Those of us who want to criticise the Government for failing to provide sufficient helicopters in a timely fashion are right to make that challenge. The all-party Defence Committee report published today has gone into huge detail: parliamentary colleagues talked to soldiers, commanders and other experts, and found that we have not been ensuring that the helicopter fleet is ready. The report is alarming—though it does not use alarmist language—in concluding:
	"We were concerned both by the proposed reduction in the size of the fleet, and by the emergence of a 'capability deficit' ahead of the introduction of newer helicopters."
	That is extremely serious. I hope that whichever Defence Minister responds to the debate, some of the Defence Committee's criticisms will be addressed.

Edward Davey: I agree. I believe that such decisions should be made by the soldiers and commanders on the ground, not by us in the House of Commons. Our job is to provide them with the necessary resources in the first place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) asked a question that did not receive a reply. If, for some reason, it is dangerous for the figures relating to the absolute number of helicopters two years ago and the present number to be in the public domain—of which I am not entirely convinced—surely those figures can be shared with members of the Select Committee so that they can, on our behalf, hold the Government to account for the statements that they are making about helicopters.

John Baron: The shortage is serious for a number of reasons, many of which have been aired this afternoon. If commanders on the ground are given the option of moving troops by air as well as by road—we saw plenty of that in Northern Ireland—and if there are not enough helicopters, many victories on the ground will become pyrrhic if we do not dominate the ground afterwards. That is what we are currently seeing in parts of Afghanistan.

Edward Davey: I am sorry, but I want to make some progress. I do not want to take too much of the House's time: I want others to be able to speak.
	When it comes to troop numbers, the case against the Prime Minister's judgment seems even stronger. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, the Chiefs of Staff appear to have put to the Prime Minister a recommendation—not an option—in stating that the provision of 2,000 extra troops was their preference. It appears that cost was a key issue in the rejection of their recommendation. If that is not the case, the Secretary of State can stand up at the Dispatch Box and deny it, but so far we have heard no denial of those reports, although the charge is fairly serious. I hope that the Secretary of State will at least try to respond to it when he winds up the debate.
	I do not think that anyone is arguing that a reinforcement of 2,000 troops would have transformed our fortunes in Helmand—of course it would not—but it is clear that more troops would have helped to do the job of winning more territory ahead of the key elections. However, even more troops cannot help if there is no link between their presence and the political solutions that we are trying to achieve. General McChrystal is at least trying to stop the military part of the campaign from making the political solutions more difficult with his instruction to reduce the number of civilian casualties.
	More should have been done much earlier to prevent civilian casualties. When the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) asked about the number of casualties in February this year, the Foreign Secretary promised to write to him with the best estimate that the Government had. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what that figure was, and whether there is any update.
	Of course, a political solution through our military presence means doing much more than simply limiting the collateral. We are told that the civilian surge is key to that, and is being developed and improved, but the critical question must be "What is the involvement of ordinary Afghans in that surge?" The Foreign Secretary has rightly talked about "Afghanisation" of the efforts, but I want to hear in far more detail how that is being implemented.

Edward Davey: I can reassure the Secretary of State that I agree with him on that point, but I hope he accepts that there have been many reports suggesting that the Americans have been rather more cavalier than the British forces in that regard. I think that that is why General McChrystal—not me—gave that instruction.

Edward Davey: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I am not going to take any more interventions.
	I assume that Governor Mangal is central to organising the civilian surge, at least in Helmand; but is he? I think we need to know about the nature of the involvement of the Afghan people. The civilian-military operations may have a great deal of British and American input, especially in terms of finance and specialist skills, but can we be told in the winding-up speech how many Afghans are working with these teams, and how are local fears of being branded a collaborator should the Taliban retake a village or town being overcome? That is critical to achieving the local political solutions we need, and we cannot move from the military to the political solutions unless we deal with that fear.
	Part of my concern about the current strategy—if we can call it that—is that one rarely hears a convincing description of what shape the political solutions envisaged in Washington, London, Kabul and elsewhere will take. The elements are there and they are repeated often. They include the following: the elections in August; the emphasis on having local political solutions, which is vital given the reality of decentralisation in Afghanistan; the importance of building the Afghan national army and police force; and the investment in non-narcotic agriculture. Yet it all seems to lack coherence. Perhaps General McChyrstal will bring some coherence after he has completed his current review, which will presumably take into account the election result. However, one has to ask some serious questions about whether the Government are playing their full role in making sure that everything is coherent.
	On the elections, how is ISAF planning to judge whether they have been a successful exercise that confers genuine legitimacy on the victor? With half the population registered to vote at the last estimate, and with widespread accusations of fraud in some provinces, do Ministers believe this election can provide the springboard that we all hope for? One also has to ask searching questions about security and the international monitoring of the campaign and polling day itself. When he replies to the debate, can the Secretary of State say a little more about the preparations for this election, as that is clearly a critical part of the journey to political progress?
	In describing that political progress, I would like the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary to say a little more about how they view the role of the Taliban. Have the Taliban been engaged in any shape or form by our diplomats or security services? Are there any successful attempts that Ministers can point to of having engaged parts of the Taliban and peeled them away? If there are such examples, we need to hear about them, because the plans for reconciliation and a political solution depend on it. We need the Government to address those questions, otherwise concern will remain about the direction we are taking.
	My final remarks relate to Pakistan. It appears that some progress has been made; either through persuasion, bribery, reassurance or simply of their own volition, the Pakistani Government appear to have grasped some difficult nettles, and they deserve credit for that. Our Government are therefore right to proffer our strong support, with development aid and counter-insurgency expertise. As the Foreign Secretary noted, providing assistance to the refugees of the fighting is also critical. The better co-operation we have seen between ISAF and Pakistan, and between Presidents Karzai and Zardari, also bodes well. Do the Government think that can be sustained, and how are we helping in that, and does it mark the strategic shift we all want? We have heard about the Pakistani army now patrolling parts of the border to stop the Taliban regrouping in Pakistan. That is fantastic, but can it be sustained?
	The better relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan points to what we need in the wider sense—the inclusion of all the region's players to create the solution. Secretary of State Clinton deserves a lot of credit for trying to do that. Everyone is aware of the many historical and political sensitivities that arise in any one of the region's players being involved, such as India's disputes with Pakistan over Kashmir, and the fact that the Iranians, who have been extraordinarily helpful in the west of Afghanistan at different times, have many arguments with Britain and America. We need to find the diplomatic skills to see beyond those historical sensitivities and disagreements, in order to find a solution that will work in Afghanistan.
	I believe that President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Richard Holbrooke and General McChrystal have produced something that we can all rally behind—ISAF and the many countries involved in this enterprise. We are now entering a critical phase, and the effort, the extra resources and the extra political capital put behind it now need to be made to work. The Government know they have the support of all the main parties on this, but they have got to start answering more searching questions to make sure they retain the support of the country.

John Reid: I declare an interest, as registered. May I begin by expressing my condolences for every one of the young men and women who have given their life or sustained injury in the cause for which we sent them? We should remember them every moment of every day.
	In the limited time available to me, I wish to touch on the questions before the House, which concern strategy, resources, Government posture and the nature of the conflict. The strategic objective, which has been the subject of much discussion here, has been clear from the beginning. It may have been formulated in different ways, but it is as follows: to protect our country's security by assisting the democratically elected Afghanistan Government to reconstruct their civil, political, military and economic capacity.
	In order to achieve that objective, there are two short to medium-term aims and a longer-term objective. The short to medium-term aims are: first, to prevent the Taliban from once again using Afghanistan as their own Government through imposition, by terror and force, on the people of Afghanistan; and, secondly, to prevent that shield from allowing al-Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a space in which it can plan, rehearse and launch terrorist attacks outside Afghanistan's borders. The longer-term strategic objective is, of course, to help build an Afghanistan capable of self-government domestically and of securing its borders from internal or external infiltration and threat. There have never been the heightened expectations to which several people in this Chamber have referred; nobody ever thought that we would create another United Kingdom somewhere next to Pakistan. I used to say that we do not believe that we are creating Hampshire—or New Hampshire—near Kabul. Any development on the civil, political and military side will have to bear in mind the culture, history, traditions, beliefs and limitations of Afghanistan's tribal society. So let us put that in perspective. It is right that we should be clear in our aims, but I do not believe that we have ever been that unclear that we thought we were creating a western democracy.
	Secondly, there are some myths and misconceptions about resources. The initial configuration—

Bernard Jenkin: I have been listening carefully and seeking to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what the strategy is. What he has outlined is a series of aspirations, but as Professor Richard Holmes would put it, this campaign seems to be long on aspirations and rather short on coherent strategy—on how we are going to achieve those aims.

John Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. What I outlined, in slightly less than a minute and a half, was the strategic objective and the short and longer-term means of achieving it. I did precisely what he asked for; I did not give a list of aspirations; I gave a list of objectives, which is what a strategy is about. Beyond the grand strategy of politics is the military strategy of how to achieve it, and behind the military strategy are the planning assumptions and the resources necessary in order to achieve that.
	That is why I turn now to resources. Let me tell the House that the configuration that we sent in to Helmand province in 2006 was not, contrary to some of the statements made in recent days, chosen by politicians. That configuration—that series of resources, in shape, capabilities and numbers—was decided upon by the chiefs of staff. Secondly, its funding was not refused by the Treasury. It was my job, as the then Secretary of State, to get it fully funded, and one of the three conditions that I laid down before we went into Afghanistan was precisely that the Treasury would fund it.
	Having said that, since then there has, of course, been a change of tactics by the Taliban, a change of circumstances and a change in the mission itself, in some ways. So people are right to ask whether the current resources meet the current tasks, notwithstanding the fact that they have met the tasks in the past. We are right, therefore, to ask the Government to keep an open mind. No plan survives the first contact with the enemy, and as the enemy changes in response to our actions, and the resources we need are different or greater, it is the obligation of Government to supply the resources that the military thinks that it needs to accomplish the objectives set out. I hope that the Government will do that. I am not in a position to decide on what Sir Richard Dannatt or anyone else requested, but when we ask young men and women to risk their lives at the front, we should ensure that they have the resources to minimise those risks.
	I wish to tackle another myth—that I at any stage hoped, predicted, expected, promised or pledged that we would leave Afghanistan without firing a shot. It is not true. No matter how often the press repeat that, they cannot make an untruth truthful by constant repetition—although Goebbels recognised that if an untruth were repeated often enough, people might come to believe that it was the truth. In fact, to the contrary, I insisted that were great threats in Afghanistan. Indeed, I refused to deploy the troops for four months beyond the original date because we did not have the configuration necessary—the Dutch were not in Oruzgan province to protect our northern flank.
	I could give quotation after quotation, but I shall make a couple suffice. The other day I said:
	"I did, however, insist that we would not be aggressors. We did not seek war. We did not go there as part of an invasion. For our part, we would be happy to go and work with the Afghan Government and leave without firing a shot."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 4.]
	But the Taliban wanted to destroy that which was being created and we were therefore forced to defend ourselves, which we did with great vigour.
	I said three years ago that
	"only someone who is dreadfully naive would think that we will be allowed to carry out ...the NATO task, in which we will be involved when we go to the south...unhindered by any attacks."—[ Official Report, 23 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1159.]
	Earlier, I had said:
	"I stress that wherever NATO troops are in Afghanistan they may be liable to attacks from insurgents. If they are attacked by insurgents and terrorists, of course we will defend ourselves—that is the nature of the rules of engagement and of our remit."—[ Official Report, 12 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1093.]
	I hope that the House will forgive me for raising these points. All hon. Members, as politicians, are used to being misrepresented, but it does not usually happen on a subject as sensitive as this, when there are families grieving for those who have died and who expect us to set the record straight.
	If we do not understand the nature of the conflict, we will not understand whether we can win, what is the nature of "victory" and whether we are making progress. I commend to the House the thoughts of several British generals, but especially those of General Rupert Smith, who describes the nature of the present conflict as the "struggle among the people". That is what we are engaged in, and the nature of the victory therefore lies not in the traditional victory parade on a definite date with a definite piece of land secured, but in preventing the Taliban from enforcing their will on the Afghanistan people, by excluding al-Qaeda and by securing our country's safety. But it is a continuing struggle that will go on for a considerable time. Nevertheless, it is important that we believe that we need not be there indefinitely. Part of our aim in our strategic objectives is to allow the people of Afghanistan, through their own Government, to continue that struggle when we are gone—in the way that the people of Iraq are doing against the internal enemy.
	Military force has no utility on its own. It only has utility in pursuit of a political objective. So when we have a military surge—as we are having now, and I welcome that—we need to bear in mind that at some stage we will also need a political surge. If we are to achieve some form of stability in Afghanistan, that political surge means that we will have to deal with, talk to and perhaps incorporate among those who govern Afghanistan those tribal elements and those elements of the Taliban who are opposed to al-Qaeda. In other words, we must help to build a hybrid state there.
	In short, there is no military solution. The military are there only to accomplish the political objectives that we have laid out. Our aim is to enable Afghanistan to continue on its own so that it can build a civil society and develop its own economy and security. Above all, we want a better society for the people of Afghanistan. In working for that, we can make sure that our front line in Afghanistan protects the people in our communities and country.

Malcolm Rifkind: The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) is right to say that the conflict in Afghanistan has changed over the past eight years. It is much more serious than was anticipated, and that has given rise to a degree of public concern. However, although we recognise that there are real problems in Afghanistan, it is important that we are careful to ensure that they are not presented in a way that makes public concern greater than it need be.
	I think that the British public are pretty robust about Afghanistan. The situation is very different from the one in respect of Iraq. The nation was not divided about the intervention in Afghanistan, and questions of legitimacy have never been a serious issue. There was confusion at first, when the British and American Governments appeared to give equal weight to eliminating the poppy trade, getting rid of corruption and improving human rights as to the fundamental task of removing al-Qaeda's opportunity to operate. That problem was resolved a year or so ago, since when there has been much greater clarity. I very much welcome that, as it is much to be desired.
	However, it is also important to recognise the public's attitude to fatalities. There is a debate about whether more helicopters might have reduced the number of deaths in Afghanistan. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said a few moments ago, and we are foolish if we sometimes give the impression that people die in war because the Government of the day have made a mistake, or because the armed forces have done something wrong.
	Wars today are not much changed from those in bygone years. Large numbers of people die, and we can never know whether an extra helicopter would have prevented an individual fatality. It is foolish even to try to identify the answer to such a question. We have had terrible fatalities in Afghanistan, and every life lost is appalling. Some 47 of our people have lost their lives in the current year, but it is worth remembering that the US forces—even with their massive resources, large numbers of helicopters and all the other facilities available to them—have lost 109 people.
	Since the campaign began, the UK has tragically lost 184 soldiers, but the US has lost 739. The Canadians, whose commitment is far smaller than ours, have lost no fewer than 124 troops. Our public are well aware of that, but we must remind them that people lose their lives when wars break out. People are rightly paying tribute to the awful loss of life that has happened, but they are much more robust than we sometimes give them credit for. They realise, as they did during the Falklands war, that death is inseparable from any serious war with proper ends and a proper approach.
	Lord Owen said recently that he believed that the conduct of the war was inappropriate and that there was a need for what he called an "overlord". He suggested that Lord Robertson should be brought back to be the overlord for the various Departments involved in the conflict. I have great respect for Lord Owen. I usually agree with his remarks, but not on this occasion. Overlords have been tried before—Sir Thomas Inskip in the 1930s is one example—but they do not work. They do not have a Department to run, and they have no budget or powers, so all they can do is to try and co-ordinate what is going on. That never works. However, if we need an overlord we have one already. He is called the Prime Minister. If the job of co-ordination—of banging heads together—is needed, that is his responsibility and no one else's. It ought to be seen as such.
	I turn now to the main ways in which the campaign has changed, and the issues that we are now addressing. The debate is about Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is right that it has been given that double title because the whole purpose of the campaign has changed very dramatically. In the earlier years, we assumed that Pakistan was important because its north-west frontier could not be a safe haven for Taliban or al-Qaeda forces fleeing from Afghanistan. In some ways, it is now the other way around. If we were to fail in Afghanistan, and if the Taliban, or people like them, were to regain control, or if people sympathetic to al-Qaeda were to be in charge, not only would it have the most grave consequences within Afghanistan and for the wider community, but it would make the job of the Pakistani Government, who are now much more robust then they have been for many years, infinitely more difficult. How could they hope to eliminate the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda in their own country, if those very people could themselves seek haven in Afghanistan? That could be their retreat in depth from any conflict in which they were involved. So the stakes are very high and we should not forget that.
	There is this question of manpower. I shall not get into a dispute about whether the British Army in Afghanistan needs 900 or 2,000 people more. In reality, the problem arises from a quite separate point: over the past 12 years, the Government have been involved in more wars—including in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan—than any Government for 50 years, and yet during that same period Army manpower has been consistently reduced. That is a disgrace and needs to be rectified. Increasing Army manpower costs much less than many other aspects of the defence budget, as I know from my background in that Department.
	In his opening remarks, the Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) made an attack on retired generals. Any of us who have been privileged to serve as Ministers in the Ministry of Defence know that retired generals are an albatross around our necks, whatever the circumstances and at any time. However, I cannot recall a time when these same retired generals have been so vocal, unequivocal, acerbic and unconstrained in their criticisms. All Governments, whether this Government or previous ones, must remember that retired generals continue to have the closest of contact with serving generals and officers. What they say does not just reflect their own personal views, but is based on what they know is happening in the armed forces, and therefore has to be given weight. That is a matter of great concern.
	The final area on which I want to comment relates to what I have just said, but is actually even more serious. To a far greater extent than I can recall being the case in the past 60 years, there is a very visible erosion in the confidence and trust between serving officers and the Government of the day. We are told that senior Labour figures are attacking the Chief of the General Staff and telling him not to meddle in politics and such matters. This is a matter of the gravest and most serious nature. I have not the time to say who is to blame, but the Government must realise, because they ultimately have the responsibility, that if serving and retired officers are speaking so publicly, and with such criticism of Government action, they have an enormous duty to try to address those concerns. These are not light-hearted matters, and the public will keep confidence in the whole operation only if they believe that the armed forces and Her Majesty's Government are working with the closest confidence and mutual trust. The impression is that that is no longer the case. The quicker that that is addressed, the better.

Michael Meacher: I want briefly to offer a slightly different perspective on this war, although I agree with a great deal of what has been said. Everyone recognises the courage and enormous skill demonstrated by our armed forces in fighting what is clearly a difficult and dangerous war in Afghanistan. I endorse that, as—I am sure—does every Member of this House, but I do not think that that should be allowed to conceal unease about the nature of the conflict or its objectives and exit strategy. I want to concentrate on that.
	The conflict has been represented in the west almost exclusively as a war against terrorism, but I submit that that is a highly misleading portrayal. For the Taliban, who are not al-Qaeda, it is basically a civil war: the Pashtuns, who are the traditional rulers of Afghanistan, against the Tajiks and Uzbeks, who make up the Northern Alliance and who, with US help in 2001, won the civil war and now largely dominate the Government. That, of course, is exactly the problem. The US and NATO invasion has unintentionally and perversely reinstated a series of brutal and corrupt landlords—warlords, I should say; they are also in control of a great deal of land, but I meant warlords—under the phoney pretence that they are democratic. The US and NATO set up a western-backed Karzai Government, but that Government's writ runs for only a few miles outside Kabul.
	As others have said, the invasion has driven the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership over the border into Pakistan, where, of course, it is now infinitely more dangerous. The invasion also restored the Pashtun nationalism that is now represented by the Taliban. As mission creep has detached the Afghan war from the original target of al-Qaeda, it has morphed into a much wider kind of war. It is a war of civilisations, in which the western aspirations, which everyone in this House will support, of restoring stability, ensuring a certain measure of democratic government—I think that we all recognise the limits of that—and improving basic services for the people are pitted against the indigenous nationalistic determination on the ground to rid the country of foreign occupation.
	Two other factors seem to make western goals much more problematic. One is the increasing reliance, especially by the US military, on air power as a way of minimising troop casualties, with devastating consequences in terms of increased civilian blood-letting.

Michael Meacher: I take the points made by my hon. Friend. I was going to present some of those figures myself, but whatever the exact figures, the real point is about changing the perception of the Afghan population about western involvement in their country. The figures that I have are that civilian deaths at the hand of NATO forces have risen to more than 4,000 since 2006. In the past year alone, they have tripled to 2,000. I am not referring, of course, to those caused by UK troops; I understand that they are overwhelmingly caused by American troops, but the perception that they create affects the landscape for us.
	Close air support bomb attacks, called in by ground forces, rose from about 175 in 2005 to nearly 3,000 in 2007. They are now, of course, the US tactic of choice, but they kill four to 10 times the number of Afghan civilians killed by ground attacks. Air strikes now account for around 80 per cent. of those killed by occupation forces, and it is certainly being claimed—I have no basis on which either to prove or to disprove this—that the coalition has killed more children in Afghanistan by its reckless use of tactical air power than have died at the hands of the Taliban. That is certainly being claimed; it may not be correct. Certainly, the numbers are considerable.
	The second factor that I think makes western promotion of good governance much more difficult is the deeply unpopular 2005 agreement for indefinite bases in the country, which clearly indicated that the US, at least, saw itself as being in for the long haul. That was reinforced by NATO's Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who said, I think last year, that western interests in Afghanistan went well beyond good governance to a strategic interest in having a permanent military presence in a state that borders central Asia, China, Iran and Pakistan. The insurgency in Afghanistan is aiming not for terror attacks in London, but for the removal of foreign troops from the occupation of their country.
	Given those factors, what is the exit strategy—if, indeed, the Americans intend there to be one at all? The war is stuck in a bloody stalemate. US and UK troops obviously have the ability to clear the ground, as they are showing with Operation Panther's Claw in northern Helmand, but they are increasingly vulnerable to a high kill and casualty rate from improvised explosive devices—from booby traps, roadside bombs and so on. On the other side, the Taliban, according to constant western military reports, have a stiffened and highly organised determination to resist, but they are vulnerable to air power, particularly helicopter gunships.
	Both sides will seek to overcome those difficulties, and to some extent they are, while consolidating their strengths. NATO forces are becoming more adept at locating hidden bombs, and troop numbers are being significantly boosted, with 17,000 in the case of the Americans, which is a 50 per cent. increase. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, the Taliban will certainly be trying to gain access to effective surface-to-air missiles, which, we should remember, turned the war against the Soviet forces in the 1980s and could do the same against NATO.
	There is no obvious way out of the stalemate, other than by pouring in 10 or 20 times the number of NATO—for that, one reads US—troops, and that is surely unimaginable in terms of domestic US politics. Even 500,000 troops in Vietnam could not defeat a determined enemy, dedicated to throwing out its foreign occupiers. This is not now primarily a war against terror, and, even in so far as it is, the terror networks have been transferred into safe havens in Pakistan, the sixth largest state in the world and nuclear-armed, where their potential for destabilisation is certainly much greater.
	Where is the situation leading? The strategic importance of Afghanistan does not suggest an early US withdrawal, and the US and its allies can neither pacify Afghanistan long-term, nor seal the border with the Taliban's Pakistani sanctuary. There will have to be a negotiated withdrawal—certainly not immediately and certainly not in a hurry, but as part of a wider political and regional settlement underpinned by other forces in the region.

Peter Tapsell: I fully supported the original intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, and the attack on the Tora Bora mountains, although it was not fully successful. However, since we went back in 2003, I have had great misgivings about the possibility of success. It seemed to me that the objectives that were announced would require a vastly greater commitment of troops, helicopters and back-up than Britain was capable of providing, and that the whole operation would break down because of the inadequate use of force.
	Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind that the most important event in the history of Islam was when the Prophet Mohammed drove out the foreigners from the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. That is the inspiration for Osama bin Laden and the theological basis of his appeal to Muslims throughout the world. One will not find any well brought up six-year-old Muslim child who does not know that story, and it absolutely chimes with the basic feelings of people who live in Afghanistan. They, for centuries, have been invaded by foreigners. They have an absolute detestation of foreign intervention; the more troops we put into Afghanistan, the greater the resistance to us will be. Years ago, when these debates were beginning, I made two points. The first was that 300,000 troops would not be sufficient to do the job and the other was that the more troops we put in, the more it would be like throwing kerosene on to a burning tent. I believe that that remains true today.
	I want to deal with only very few points during the short time that I have to speak. The original objectives have virtually been abandoned; they were to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, get rid of the poppy trade, overthrow the Taliban and set up a democratic Government. None of them have been achieved, and I do not believe that any ever will be. In fact, Osama bin Laden is probably more of a danger dead than alive, because of his mystique.
	I want to question two particular points. Basically, the new objectives are that we want to fight in Afghanistan to avoid terrorism in Britain and the method of achieving that in the medium and long term is the building up of a large Afghan army. The issue is vital for the future, so I ask Ministers to ask themselves a question: to whom do they think this large Afghan army will owe its allegiance? Afghanistan, which is the size of France, is not really a country at all; until the early 19th century, it was just called the area in which the Afghans lived. There is really no such thing as an Afghan. Afghanistan has 60 different tribes. The northern tribes in the Northern Alliance—the Uzbeks, the Tajiks and so on—are quite different from the Pashtun, who were called the Pathans when I was young.
	There is no possibility of such tribes working together for any length of time. If the army is to be predominantly Pashtun, it will be disliked by all the other tribes; if the army is an attempt to merge all the tribes together, it will simply be unworkable. The arms that we give the army will all be sold to the Taliban, as happened with the mujaheddin. Much of the weaponry that the Taliban are using now comes from the $25 billion of arms that the Americans poured into the mujaheddin.
	In my view, there is not the slightest possibility that the army will be loyal to President Karzai. The idea that our young men are fighting and dying so that President Karzai can remain President of Afghanistan is absolutely fantastic. Only a few weeks ago, Washington was desperately looking around to find somebody other than Karzai to be put up for the presidency. He is a completely hopeless and discredited man. If he goes back to the presidential palace in Kabul, he will not be able to come out again without immediate danger of assassination.
	The other argument is that we have to go on with our campaign because of the danger of terrorism at home. I do not believe that that is true. First, Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, said recently that our military presence in Afghanistan actually increased the danger of terrorist activity in this country. We also know from the security services that 2,000 people living in Britain are under constant surveillance because they are believed to be potential terrorists. We are exporting terrorists all over the world; it is one of our most effective export trades. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have always been totally different from each other. The Taliban have never had international ambitions and have always disliked al-Qaeda. All the evidence is that al-Qaeda has now left Afghanistan altogether. There is no reason at all why we cannot negotiate a settlement with the Taliban; indeed, we know that the Americans are trying to do exactly that.
	It is completely false to say that we have to pursue the war to protect Pakistan. I have been saying for seven years that this war would have the effect of radicalising Pakistan. The Taliban had no influence in Pakistan until very recently; now, allegedly, even Karachi has a Taliban influence. That sounds rather like sending in the Salvation Army to run Sodom and Gomorrah. The Taliban running Karachi is simply not going to happen; anybody who has been to Karachi knows that the Taliban will not be welcomed there. However, the Taliban are radicalising the peasantry throughout Pakistan, which has a huge population of illiterate, very poor people who have never had a proper Government and are very unhappy. Having foreign troops attacking Waziristan and so on will merely make them increasingly radical and increasingly violently opposed to western interests.

Derek Twigg: I, too, express my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.
	As always in these debates, I say that we have the best armed forces in the world who deserve all our support and the best possible equipment to ensure that they can continue to do the job in the way they do. War and conflict are not risk-free. There have clearly been areas where we could have done things better and perhaps learned lessons more quickly, but that has been the case in warfare and conflict throughout history. The key thing is to learn our lessons quickly.
	Having spoken to our armed forces when I visited Afghanistan and Iraq, I sincerely believe that they feel they are better equipped than they have ever been. The personal kit, in particular, is seen as the best they have had, and there have been significant improvements in other equipment. One of their complaints was that although the equipment had improved a lot, they did not have a chance to train with it when they were back in the UK because they had to rush out to theatre. That is an important point to understand. Of course there is always more that we can do.
	Something that has not been mentioned so far is the massive improvement in medical support. All the personnel I spoke to in theatre said that they had great confidence in the medical support that was out there in terms of how quickly it could get to people. There is now the hard-roofed hospital at Camp Bastion, which I have visited; it is a great facility that is being used by the Americans and others. When people come back to the UK, they go to Selly Oak or Headley Court. Major improvements have taken place under this Government.
	I will not go over our objectives again, as my Front-Bench colleagues have made them fairly clear. A crucial aspect is the position of Pakistan—how it is involved, how we work with it, and its relationship with the whole region, not least Afghanistan. NATO, the UN and others will have to support and work with Pakistan to deal with terrorism, the Taliban and those who want to see chaos and war around the region. The fundamental Islamists who cause so many of the problems and difficulties that we face must be stood up to, and we cannot do that just by non-military means.
	The Afghans told me that, for them, security is key—whether it is the security to go to school, to go to work or to get their goods to market—as is personal safety. That is something that we are working on very strongly. Also key is the development of the Afghan army and police, with increases in their numbers. A great deal of improvement has taken place in the Afghan army, but much more needs to be done as regards the police. At the end of the day, there will have to be reconciliation with elements of the Taliban and the tribes that are fighting against the coalition forces. That will have to be done by the Afghans themselves; it cannot be done by us, nor should it be.
	Returning to the issue of equipment, it is important to understand that this is a NATO operation: a coalition. We have heard about General Dannatt flying in the American army helicopter; well, Americans fly in our helicopters. I flew in a Dutch helicopter when I was in Afghanistan for the first time. We must ensure that NATO uses its own resources to the best possible extent and efficiency.
	I do not believe there is any doubt that we need more helicopters, and I welcome what the Government have said about the increased helicopter numbers and hours and our future plans. One thing that often gets overlooked is that helicopters are not just about deploying troops but about CASEVAC—casualty evacuation. They are about getting wounded service personnel back from the front line and to hospital for treatment as quickly as possible.
	All the commanders I spoke to when I went to Afghanistan said that they wanted more helicopters. That was very clear and matter of fact. They regularly raised with me the fact that on every occasion they could go in and defeat the Taliban, but then because there were not enough troops on the ground, or sometimes enough equipment, to be able to dominate the area, the Taliban would come back in. Again, it was for NATO, not just this country, to get to grips with that. One of the biggest mistakes that was made was not dominating the ground that we took, and NATO has a responsibility for that, because we increased our troop numbers considerably.
	I cannot say whether lives would have been saved if we had had more helicopters, as some have suggested. One of them could have been brought down and we could have lost a lot of soldiers—more than if an armoured vehicle was blown up, for instance. It is important to understand that it is not an exact science, and we cannot say that more helicopters would definitely have saved lives. Again, the question is whether NATO can provide more helicopters and more support.
	We have increased troop numbers, and it is important that our troops dominate the ground to ensure that the development that we all want to see takes place. It annoys me that today commentators are still saying that the solution will not be a military one. No one is saying that it will, and I am amazed that commentators still go on about that. However, it must be a military aim to enable development to take place in terms of schools, hospitals, agriculture and so on for the Afghans.
	I do not want the fact that protected vehicles are crucial to be lost in the debate about helicopters. The press are currently into helicopters, but we do not want money to be diverted from protected vehicles. There has to be a balance. Surveillance equipment is key for detecting roadside bombs and surveilling areas where the Taliban are known to be active. There must be a balance. The tactics must be right, and we must have a number of options available to us.
	Lessons must always be learned quickly, and there is evidence that at times we have not done so. I do not know whether that is because of circumstances in the field or because of the set-up of the Ministry of Defence, but we have to learn lessons quickly. That has always been the case in warfare. In the second world war we were putting Sherman tanks against German tanks, and they were no match for them despite all the years at war. We must always learn lessons and ensure that we get things right and protect our troops in the best possible way.
	The decision to go in was taken in 2006, before I was at the MOD. I would be interested to know what advice Ministers were given by the chiefs of staff about what could be achieved with the forces and equipment we had at that time, so that we could deliver our political aims and those of the western alliance.
	In the end, we must support our armed forces, who are the best in the world. Politicians fail, as we know, and we have to revert to military action at times. The military are the people who protect our security, whether at home or abroad, and they deserve our full support.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke approvingly of the quality of medical services now available. Those who have the privilege of going to the hospital at Selly Oak or the rehabilitation centre at Headley Court will see ample evidence of that medical skill, but they will also see extraordinary illustrations of courage and a determination to overcome adversity from the patients in either institution.
	We have no conscripts. Our armed forces are professional, and we therefore expect of them professionalism, skill and courage. However, we have no right to expect them to display those qualities unless, in return, we give them the best equipment available. We have no right to expose them to unnecessary risk and no right to take advantage of their loyalty. In Afghanistan, they have not failed in their duty, but—I do not say this lightly—I believe that we have failed in ours.
	The United Kingdom is not equipped to conduct two hot wars, as it has done in the past six years. It was not supposed to be like that. The 1998 defence review, in which the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) played a leading part as the then Minister for the Armed Forces, was much praised. However, it envisaged one short war-fighting deployment and one non-war-fighting operation happening simultaneously. Instead, we have had two enduring war-fighting deployments. There is therefore no wonder that there is a shortage of equipment, that the Army, in Sir Richard Dannatt's words has been "running hot", and that the rate of attrition of equipment has been so severe.
	The loyalty of the armed services extends beyond Queen and country to making do, getting on with the job—cracking on, to use their vernacular—and to, in the Army in particular, loyalty to the regiment and the people with whom they serve. Again, I do not say this lightly, but I believe that we have exploited that loyalty.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke dismissively of what he called political point scoring. The Government should understand the difference between support for the armed services and the legitimate questioning of Government policy by Members of Parliament. As the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) gave us something of a historical perspective, I remind the House that as a result of the Norway debate in this Chamber, the course, conduct and direction of the second world war was substantially changed. Of course we will support our forces, but we have a duty as Members of Parliament to question Government policies when we believe that they are not apt or adequate to cover the challenges that our forces are required to meet.
	Why have these matters come to a head in the past few days? It has happened almost certainly because of the casualties that have been suffered, but, as has been said, the issue of helicopters and protected vehicles has been around for a long time. As soon as the Taliban gave up face-to-face confrontation with our forces and embarked on the new tactic of improvised explosive devices, that same issue arose. A question for the Government is whether, when that happened, they responded adequately with the matériel and the equipment necessary to allow us to confront those tactics.
	There is another question for the Government, which the debate has not properly answered. What is the strategy for co-ordinating the political, military, reconstruction and counter-narcotics policies? We have had a slightly semantic discussion about that, but yesterday at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) simply stated strategic objectives. Strategy is how one achieves those objectives—the means whereby they are co-ordinated. If it is true that the three senior members of the Cabinet with responsibility for those matters meet only once a month, that is nothing like the sort of co-ordination that is necessary. I say that because we are effectively at war, albeit not across Europe, as we were between 1939 and 1945, or, indeed, in Asia. However, we are at war and if the elements are to be properly knitted together to produce a benevolent outcome, much better co-ordination is required.
	We have hardly heard a mention in the past two and a half weeks of the policy on narcotics, yet that is key to the hearts and minds operation. If all one has to grow is the poppy seed and the profit of that may be taken away and one lives in a subsistence economy, something else must be provided. The counter-narcotics strategy is also the key to dealing with the corruption that is endemic in the present Government in Afghanistan.
	The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle mentioned Mr. Karzai, who will win in August. However, I was at the Munich security conference earlier this year and Richard Holbrooke's disdain for Mr. Karzai and his evident lack of confidence in him was manifest for all to see. So when we talk about political stability and establishing sound government, we ought to take account of the personalities who are available and not just the institutions.
	Public opinion in this country is finely balanced, but unless there is clear evidence of some recognition by the Government of the position of the Army in Afghanistan in particular, it could easily fracture, leaving us with opposition to our continued presence. The argument will be: "Come out, irrespective of the consequences of doing so." That is why I want to finish with this. Whatever else the Government are doing, they should be knocking on the door of every defence ministry of every NATO country and saying, "We want to beg, borrow or steal protected vehicles. We want to beg, borrow or steal any helicopters that you have. You may not be willing to risk the lives of your young men and women, but at the very least you have an obligation to help those of us who are willing to take that risk with the matériel that will enable us to carry this operation through to a proper conclusion."

James Plaskitt: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, having spent last week in Helmand with British forces at Camp Bastion and in Kandahar. I should like to put on record my thanks to our Ministry of Defence staff who facilitate such visits for Members of Parliament and to all those involved in theatre who make time to brief us, which they do very extensively.
	Such visits are extremely worth while. I went on the principle of fact finding and learnt a huge amount. Also, the timing was significant, because it was the week when Operation Panther's Claw was gathering momentum. Tragically, it was also a week of awful casualties and losses, some of which we saw at first hand. We cannot come back from such a visit and fail to be completely impressed by the professionalism, commitment and determination of all our armed forces who are in theatre conducting those operations.
	With the intensification of the operation now taking place and with the tragically increased casualty numbers, it is inevitable that there will be, as there now is, increased public questioning of that operation. When we pursue military activities in democracies, it is entirely right that we should debate—and that we should have the right to debate—the conflicts in which we are engaged. However, we need to do that with sensitivity about the impact that it can have on those at the front undertaking those operations, while we comfortably debate their pros and cons back here. It is inappropriate for us to engage in straightforward political point scoring while soldiers' lives are on the line, and while some are losing their lives and many others are sustaining life-changing injuries. We are entitled to debate and we should debate, but we must do it in a responsible manner.
	I want briefly to say something about equipment. It is not the main focus of my contribution, but the visit that I undertook was an opportunity to pursue the issue in detail in conversation with commanders at the front line and with troops who are engaged in the conflict daily. No commander who briefed me and no soldiers to whom I talked said that they felt that they were ill-equipped for what we were asking them to do. Indeed, many said that they felt that they had the most up-to-date and sophisticated equipment to undertake their activities that they had ever had. Many soldiers said to me personally, "I'm better equipped than ever before." We saw at first hand the sophisticated surveillance equipment that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned, which is doing fantastic work, and the quality of the vehicles that the troops move around in. That needs to be balanced against other issues in the current debate about whether the equipment is right.
	It is really important to understand, when discussing equipment, that it is a function of what is happening on the ground at any given time, and that that is never going to be static. There are several operations taking place in parallel at the same time, and there is shifting emphasis between different parts of the operations. Furthermore, conditions on the ground can change, sometimes very rapidly, as can the responses from the enemy with whom we are engaging. We need to understand that the equipment issue is not a static one, and that, to some extent, equipment is always going to struggle to keep pace with the reality on the ground. It is also important to remember the shared nature of the equipment, and not simply consider what UK forces get from UK sources. We need to consider what all the forces can access on a shared basis on the ground in response to the activities that they are being asked to undertake.
	I want to focus mainly on this point. In the light of the changing nature of what is happening in Afghanistan and, tragically, of the increased losses, it is now incumbent on the Government to explain even more clearly the overall context of the operation. The explanation is available, and the Government have published some good documentation on it, but it is not yet comprehensively understood. Because of the increase in public questioning, it is now time to increase the degree of explanation, in order to combat public uncertainty and to give support to our forces who are undertaking this action.
	The answers are available, and we have heard some of them during the course of the debate this afternoon, but we are not yet setting them out clearly enough. The questions break down into a number of different categories. Many people are asking what is different this time—a question asked not only by people in Afghanistan, but by the public who are watching the operation. We need to explain the relationship between what is happening in Afghanistan and what is happening in Pakistan. We also need to spend more time discussing what is being altered on the ground in order for our action to achieve a lasting impact, and how the responsibility to achieve it is being shared.
	We also need to have a discussion with the public about what will constitute success in this context. That is not an easy concept to grasp, because this is not a conventional conflict. This is not about territorial gain, or about repelling an invader of our own territory. This action involves a much more complex notion of what may or may not constitute success. We need to be straightforward with the public and tell them that this is not an easy concept to grasp, and that success might have more to do with the absence of something awful than with the existence of something that is visibly evident to all of us.
	We shall have an opportunity to set that out how I would like to see it. As we have been discussing, we know that the US is leading a rethink on strategy at the moment, which will have an impact on our deployment, as well as on other NATO deployments. We also know that the elections in Afghanistan in August will create something of a political watershed there, and that that will have an impact on the future commitment of Afghan forces, police and civilians. Those two factors will create an opportunity for the Government here to readdress with the public the nature of the United Kingdom's contribution to this multinational, UN-endorsed effort.
	We could provide greater clarity about our military contribution. We could also do more to explain the hearts and minds element of the strategy, which is extremely important, in order to explain how the present military action will open the way for economic, social and political development that will permanently alter the reality on the ground in Afghanistan and thus have an impact on our security here in the United Kingdom.
	The question of timing is a difficult one. One commander said to me:
	"This is Afghanistan; it is not fast."
	On the other hand, there is clearly pressure on us to achieve irreversible momentum. We have the luxury of being able to debate this issue while other people take the action, but we also have an obligation to explain what is happening. The morale of the troops with whom I spent last week is very high, but they would begin to worry if they sensed that public support for their work was ebbing away—

Nicholas Soames: I would like to associate myself particularly with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and other colleagues who have spoken powerfully on both sides of the House on this very important matter. In common with the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), a former Secretary of State for Defence, my heart goes out to the families of the fallen and the families of all the soldiers, airmen, members of the Navy and civilians serving in Afghanistan who are naturally extremely anxious at the turn of events taking place in that country.
	Having said that, I regret having to say that the Prime Minister, who claims, rightly, the overall command of this matter, has in my judgment acted in a thoroughly casual way on this war. Since 2007, he has made just two statements to the House on the war in Afghanistan. That is not good enough, and I do not think this House has been kept anywhere near well enough informed. As colleagues such as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) argued earlier, the co-ordination and overall arrangement of these matters has been absolutely disgraceful, and I think people should be very angry about it.
	Whatever the sterile arguments—they were used on Monday by the Prime Minister who was dissembling in a less than frank manner about the situation of our troops in Afghanistan—at the end of the day the success of the operations in that country will all boil down to one thing and one thing only: the men carrying out these operations on the ground, those who support them and those committed to providing a holistic approach.
	I want to speak today on behalf of the soldiers—the splendid, brave, long-suffering soldiers in the field, and those who support them. I would like the House to recall the words of Lord Wavell, when he said that
	"in the last resort, the end of all military training, the settling of all policy, the ordering of all weaponry and all that goes into the makings of the armed forces is that the deciding factor in battle will always be this. That sooner or later, Private so-and-so will, of his own free will and in the face of great danger, uncertainty and chaos, have to advance to his front in the face of the enemy. If all that goes wrong, after all the training, the intensive preparation and the provision of equipment and expenditure, the system has failed."
	Well, we all know that it has not failed so far. The armed forces have never let us down, but I say to the House that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence—not the present one—are letting them down by failing adequately to respond to their requirements for resources for the hugely demanding tasks laid upon them.
	For the young soldiers of today, as for their truly illustrious forebears, warfare continues to represent the ultimate physical and moral challenge. In Afghanistan at this very moment, they are encountering a combination of extraordinary danger and rapidly changing circumstances amid conditions of chaos and uncertainty. Their skills, the skills and quality of their leadership, of their weaponry and of their equipment are all being very severely tested.
	I believe that the Prime Minister's shameful lack of urgency must become a thing of the past and that the Government must realise that we are at war. If they really mean what they say about supporting our soldiers with whatever they need, the Government must send more troops to Helmand—at least the 2,000 requested in the theatre capability review agreed between the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon, and then refused by the Prime Minister and the Treasury. The Prime Minister should be deeply ashamed for such crass misjudgment, which denies commanders on the ground from holding hard-won objectives.
	I want to say a few words about equipment. While everyone wants more, it is a fact that the soldiers' personal kits—rifle, helmet, boots and clothing—are truly excellent; they have to carry an enormous amount of weight in extreme heat and their toughness and hardiness are beyond all admiration.
	There are clearly shortfalls in the vehicle fleet, and on too many occasions soldiers are being forced to use them for missions, and in tactical situations, for which they were not designed. It is, for example, sad beyond words that the late commanding officer of the 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards had to hitch a lift on a logistics convoy in order to visit his own men on operations. The real problem is that there are simply not enough soldiers to carry out the mission set by the Government: to hold, clear and build; and further, to sustain a more vigorous counter-insurgency that depends on agility and surprise.
	If the Government do not put in more troops, the mission could fail. However, I want to make it plain to the House that the failure would most definitely not be caused by a lack of guts and skill on the part of Tommy Atkins with his rifle and bayonet. I want the Minister, the House and the country to understand that the soldiers in Afghanistan do feel let down by a lack of helicopters and manpower, which obviously limits their abilities and opportunities for movement and assault. As a result of those two factors, they cannot be as tactically agile as they would like, and are thus forced into an inappropriate use of vehicles and tactical procedures that inevitably puts them at maximum, rather than minimum, risk of casualties.
	Let us be clear: the soldiers feel let down not by the nation, but by the Government, and by a clearly weak and ineffective leadership in the Ministry of Defence. We in the House should be collectively ashamed that the finest army in the world is fighting in the most inhospitable, extreme and dangerous environment, under-resourced for an entirely valid and viable mission by a Government whose actions in these matters too often seem largely beyond parody.

Paul Flynn: That was a disgraceful contribution. To suggest to those whose grief is raw, who are suffering, whose sobs we heard from the town of Wootton Bassett, that there was some alternative, some other way—that if another Government had been in power, or if there had been a different configuration here or there, their loved ones would not have died—is a cruel and callous deception.
	To understand the Taliban, I suggest that we look at the works of James Fergusson, who recently gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He talked about his conversation with a high-ranking member of the Taliban, who said to him, "I have three children, aged two, five and six, but I never see them; I don't want to see them, because if I saw them I would start to love them, and they would love me. The loss would be greater when I die." James Fergusson said to the Taliban leader, "Do you want to die?" He replied, "Of course I want to die. That is my dearest wish. I want to die like my father died against the Russians, like my great grandfather died, and like his father died. They died fighting the Ferengi in a jihad. I hope it is the way my sons die as well."
	It is a myth that we are fighting a war against a finite force. The Taliban will renew themselves virtually infinitely. Every death of a civilian—there have been thousands—is a defeat for us and a recruiting agent for the Taliban. Before Helmand, I supported the invasion, as other Members did, in 2001. I thought at the time that there was no chance of succeeding on drugs, and we have not done so. Despite spending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, the drug production is the same as it was—it was higher a few years before that. There are areas that are now free of poppy growing, but they are used for growing cannabis. We have seen the hugely corrupting drugs industry flowering there, with the result that the price of heroin on the streets of London is cheaper than it has ever been.
	When the bullets stop firing, who will move in? It will be the Afghan police. Why do we delude ourselves about that group? They are mostly Uzbeks, and there was evidence from Reuters last week, from the Helmand village of Pankela, that the elders had got together and said, "If you move out and the Afghan police move in, we will join the Taliban." The reason for that is not just that they are not paid, or that they are deeply corrupt. According to evidence given to the Select Committee, 60 per cent. of them are addicted to heroin, and many others are dealing in heroin in order to earn their money. They routinely extort from the local population. The main objection in the village of Pankela, however, was to the army's use of "bacha bazi", a horrible form of child sexual exploitation. Pre-pubescent boys are kidnapped, kept in the police compound and raped by the police. That is the ugly, awful reality of what we are offering to Afghanistan.
	A splendid book is about to be published. It is by Malalai Joya, who was the youngest member of the Afghan Parliament. She was suspended after attacking the warlords in her first speech because she regarded them as being on a par with the Taliban. She has won many awards, and has said that human rights are worse in Karzai's Afghanistan than they were under the Taliban. We should also consider President Karzai's record. He refused to pardon a young man who had been found guilty of accessing a document about women's human rights on the internet—that man is in jail for 20 years—but freely pardoned a gang of thugs who had gang-raped a 13-year-old girl. He has approved a policy of permitting, and making legal, marital rape.
	It is incredible that we do not see the reality. We owe the troops a debt of gratitude. We owe it to them to tell the truth here, rather than dealing with peripheral issues. Many of the issues that we have talked about today will make no difference. Helicopters might produce even worse casualties. There is no easy solution. The reason for our casualties in Helmand province is our presence there. Before we went into Helmand in 2006, only seven of our soldiers had died, five of them in accidents. Our presence there was a magnet, dragging in the Taliban. It multiplied their numbers, because we are the Ferengi, and they want to fight a jihad against us. Unless we know the basic reason why this is going on, we will fail our troops in the battle.
	Something that we have previously discussed at some length—we have not discussed it today, but perhaps we should—is the staggering amount of aid that we have poured into the country: $25 billion. The Select Committee was told that 20 per cent. of it might have reached its intended recipients. For every British soldier who dies, there is a new millionaire in Kabul. Many of the new millionaires who grow rich on the drug trade, the corruption and the money that we have poured in are relatives of President Karzai, including his brother.

Paul Flynn: There have been improvements in women's and girls' education, but the truth is that, despite all the aid that has been poured in, Afghanistan still has the world's third highest child mortality rate and second highest maternity mortality rate, because the country is endemically corrupt. Our aims are not attainable. I believe that all the prospects are dreadful—awful. We can continue what we are doing now. We can pour in troops, which will mean more targets and more deaths. It will be absolutely futile. It will make us good, as politicians, but we are here, 1,000 miles away from the heat, suffering and danger of the battlefield.
	We have a collective responsibility. We have deceived ourselves, certainly since 2006, and we have given our soldiers an unattainable objective—several unattainable objectives. We cannot win on drugs, we cannot win on human rights, and we cannot do anything about the corruption. The warlords have become worse because Americans have poured billions of dollars into their pockets.
	We have a number of possible options. One is to continue as at present, in which case the misery will go on and the coffins will carry on coming home, and we might well reach the same point as the Americans did in Vietnam when popular opinion would no longer accept the situation and the Americans ran away in panic from Saigon. We might leave in those circumstances. That would be the worst possibility, because our allies in Afghanistan who are working with us now would be slaughtered. The other, more hopeful, possibility is that we fix an exit date, as Canada has already done. In that case, we can look to having an exit strategy, and not to victory—not to more helicopters or more troops, but to finding a way of extricating ourselves. It will happen in the end. There must be some deal that can be done. It is not going to be easy, and we are not going to produce a Hampshire in Afghanistan, but this is the only practical way of escaping from the terrible situation we are in at present.
	The American General McChrystal has talked about two things that have never been mentioned before: the exit strategy and defeat. We must start believing in the possibility of defeat because, sadly, unless there is a change of mind by all the parties in this House, and political muscle behind new thinking—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
	The next speaker in the debate will be subject to the eight-minute limit, but in view of the substantial number of Members still seeking to catch my eye, thereafter the time limit for each speech will be reduced to six minutes—and I simply say in the spirit of encouragement to hon. and right hon. Members that if they are able to speak even more briefly than that, that will aid the House as a whole.

James Arbuthnot: I shall do my best to stick to six minutes, Mr. Speaker.
	I profoundly respect the views of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), but I also profoundly disagree with them. He made the same points in relation to Iraq, and I think that he was wrong in relation to Iraq. In Iraq, we have seen what is not at all a comfortable country emerging out of darkness, and we have seen the success in transferring to local security people a job that was previously taken on by the Americans and the British. We have seen Iraqis taking a degree of pride from their success in reducing, although not eliminating, the corruption, violence, bombs and sectarianism in that country. I believe that we ought to express the hope that the same can be achieved in Afghanistan. Indeed, it is essential that we work towards that.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) that the arguments need to be better made and to be spread around in the pubs and clubs of this country, because we are tending to lose the notion that our troops need to be in Afghanistan. I am sure that they do need to be there, because of the instability of that general region and the fact that there is a link between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and another direct link from Pakistan—and increasingly from Afghanistan—to those communities in this country. We must also remember that Pakistan is nuclear-armed, and the fact that there is now a total threat to this country as a result of the instability of that region means that we have to continue with this battle and win it. The alternative of withdrawal is not one that we should contemplate.
	The general aims of the comprehensive approach are very laudable, and I pay tribute to the Departments of Government, which never used to work together and have never liked the notion of doing so to the extent that they are trying to do now. They are still struggling, particularly in Whitehall. On the ground, the comprehensive approach is much better appreciated and much better strived for than in Whitehall. There needs to be better training and better working together here, but overall the comprehensive approach is the only way forward.
	I feel that it is absolutely essential to support this mission in Afghanistan—the entire country needs to support it—but support means certain things. It means giving our armed forces and the other components of the comprehensive approach the equipment that they need. More helicopters are needed in the region—it is not just our armed forces that need them—but helicopters themselves are not enough. The Defence Committee's report today brought out the fact that helicopters require manpower, training and support, so just producing helicopters will not solve the problem. Of those four things, manpower is the most under pressure at the moment. We also need more uniform helicopters. There are lots of Chinooks of many different types, and the complication and expense of dealing with an imperfect and non-uniform fleet are extremely difficult for the Ministry of Defence. We need better vehicles. I hope that others will talk about that, because some of the vehicles in theatre are having to be withdrawn. We also need a better, more up-to-date air bridge, so that our troops do not have to wait in appalling conditions in order to take advantage of their leave. So we need more and better equipment.
	We also need people. Reference has been made to the 2,000 troops that I understand were asked for in recent weeks. This morning, I tried to get out of the Prime Minister whether that was true, but I did not manage it. The shadow Secretary of State got it exactly right; we need troops not only to take ground, but to hold the ground that they have taken and to build on it. If we have too few troops to hold and to build, we risk unnecessarily the lives of the soldiers who were used to take the ground. We need a significantly larger pool of troops in our armed forces to be available to go, without pressure, to Afghanistan.
	The final thing that we need is the money to support this operation. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant when he said that our armed forces would not be short of money. I was told that it was established by the increase in the expected urgent operational requirements money that was announced on that day that the Treasury meant what it said. However, the UOR money for this year is capped at about £735 million, whereas last year's cap was at more than £1 billion. So, there has been a decrease in that money, and that is not because the threats have reduced or because the urgency has reduced; it is because the available money has reduced. I do not think that that is the right way to treat our troops.

Gisela Stuart: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), and I wish to congratulate him on his Committee's report. When it comes to equipment it always becomes very difficult for those not closely involved, because there are always several sides to the story. Helicopters have been discussed, and one thing that struck me when we flew down in them on our visit to the area was how much they were resented by the local population—helicopters fly over their houses, so they find them incredibly intrusive. So people will have to go on the ground and we need to be realistic.
	I wish to say a little about what the end game is likely to be, because one of a number of important comments made today related to the inclusion of Afghanistan and Pakistan in this. The Secretary of State indicated that greater co-operation is clearly taking place on the border, certainly on the one with Baluchestan. What is happening in Helmand reflects what is happening on the Pakistani side to make the border more secure. This will also be about the build-up of the Afghan national police and army. It is clear that we have been much more successful with the army than with the police, but we should be careful about the words we use. When we were in Afghanistan it was clear that people there referred to their policemen as soldiers and they referred to their soldiers as warriors. This is not the kind of police force that we are used to—it is much tougher, and at the moment it is still being recruited along tribal lines. Until there is a police force in Afghanistan that does not follow tribal lines, we will continue to have the sort of problems that have been described.
	Afghan warfare is very different. The history of the country shows that no outside force has ever succeeded in conquering it. What is different this time is that foreign troops are there with the consent of the Government. Their writ may not travel far beyond the capital, but it is the beginning of a settlement. It will have to be seen in two distinct phases. We need to be careful when we talk about the Taliban: there are Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and central Asian Taliban, and then there is al-Qaeda, and we are not entirely sure where they are from. There are also small pockets of 100 or so insurgents, so we need to be careful about language. Even in Helmand, when they talk about foreign Taliban, they may mean Afghan Taliban from a different province.
	We need a military presence that the Taliban—the insurgents, whoever they are—know will stay and fight, not pack its bags and leave. Then will come the point at which we have to bring those people into the political process. The Afghan way of warfare does not mean winning on the battlefield, but by defection. What years of history have taught Afghans is to wait and see which is the winning side—and that is the side to join. That is how we have brought warlords into the process, and that is what the long-term strategy for our military presence should be.
	We have to be very forceful on the military end, but negotiate to bring people into the process. The elections in the summer will be important in that, but we should be careful about thinking that the elections mean democracy per se. The voter registration and other processes will set the scene, but there is deep corruption in the country, and we should be honest about that. The corruption starts at the top, and the aid that comes in gets sliced all the way through. However, that is better than the alternative, and one of the most encouraging changes in terms of Government policy—I have visited three times in the past five years, and things have changed—was the DFID White Paper, which made the clear commitment that the Foreign Office and the MOD would work much more closely together when it came to international aid. Certainly, with the role of the senior representative in Helmand, Hugh Powell, who pulls together the international effort with our Departments' efforts, we are moving in the right direction.
	We must not give up. We must not say, "It's so awful, there's nothing we can do." We owe it to our troops to pursue our strategy. These are the most crucial, and potentially most damaging, stages of the operation, and we have to ensure that the casualties were sustained for a reason worth fighting for.

Elfyn Llwyd: Although I voted against the incursion into Afghanistan, that is an irrelevance today. We owe our allegiance to the men and women who are in harm's way. We owe it to them to support them fully, in every possible way, including kit and so on.
	I have heard it said that in warfare deaths are inevitable. That may be so, but the most disturbing and galling part of this current situation is that three quarters of recent deaths, so I am told, were avoidable. Had the Government provided adequate kit and equipment for the military—sufficient helicopters and properly armoured vehicles—many of these roadside deaths would not have occurred.
	If that statistic is not bad enough, the situation is compounded by the lack of a clear military objective and strategy in Afghanistan. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says that he wants to draw down troops after the Afghan elections, but on the other, the military top brass say that they want an extra 2,000 troops. What are we to make of those conflicting statements?
	I have also heard it said that the conflict is about bringing democracy to Afghanistan, but the country has never been a democracy. It has been a tribal society for centuries and I do not think that it is possible to impose a democratic system on it.
	We owe the troops a definite duty of care in every way possible. The military say, "More boots on the ground, more bodies in bags." That may be crude, but that is how they talk. Some strategists argue that a surge of new troops provides more of a target, and the lesson from Northern Ireland is that it is better to use more helicopters. As has been noted, the Americans learned in Vietnam that multiple casualties turned public opinion against them, and I hope that we never reach that stage.
	Force protection equals duty of care to soldiers. The diary of a young platoon commander in the Welsh Guards was published recently. Lieutenant Mark Evison, 26, wrote:
	"I have a lack of radios, water, food and medical equipment. This, with manpower, is what these missions lack. It is disgraceful to send a platoon to a very dangerous area with two weeks' water and food and one team medics' pack. Injuries will be sustained which I will not be able to treat and deaths could occur which could have been stopped. We are walking on a tightrope and from what it seems here are likely to fall unless drastic measures are undertaken."
	That brave young man died in May.
	We have also heard of the recent coroner's report into the death of Corporal Mark Wright. The coroner said that there were three main reasons for his death, two of them being a lack of lighter helicopters fitted with a winch that could have pulled the troops away and the administrative delay in sending a suitable helicopter.
	Ultimately, the only way to get our troops out is to arm and train the Afghan national army properly, but the problem is that leaders are in short supply. Combat units report shortages in about 40 or 50 per cent. of the equipment that they require, so things are not going well in that regard, either.
	The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) spoke about the Taliban regrouping and about the flourishing heroin trade. He said that Britain was backing a Government full of corrupt practices, while too many ordinary Afghans are not seeing any reconstruction at all. We need to look at the military objectives and the immediate military strategies if we are to keep public opinion and the House informed. That is going ahead now in Washington, and the same thing needs to happen here as well. Many military commanders, and the families of front-line troops, are not convinced that the best strategies are being pursued. That needs to be addressed very swiftly.
	However, what the Prime Minister said this week is surely an admission of the fact that the troops are not adequately equipped. Three quarters of the deaths in Afghanistan have happened because of roadside bombs. It is not a new tactic: it was known and probably expected, so why are the heavy armoured vehicles being ordered only now? How many more brave men and women have to die before the equipment is delivered?
	There have been loud calls to discontinue the use of the Snatch vehicle in some operational theatres. Why is it only now that the Prime Minister has announced this ordering of equipment? The same is true of helicopters. I will not go into the sterile debate that we had earlier this week, but it is a big issue.
	I was in Basra and Baghdad a few years ago and I know that helicopters are much more effective than vehicles that have to travel on dangerous roads. We need to concentrate, as the Americans are doing, on force protection. I hope that the UK will do likewise. Commanders in the field protect their troops, and I hope that the Government will have drastic rethink of their current strategy and objectives. They must keep this place—and, crucially, the public, informed.

John McDonnell: As a parent, I find it extremely distressing to see photographs of the young men who have died in the conflict in Afghanistan. Many are so young: I find it hard to come to terms with the death of an 18-year-old barely out of school.
	Parents and families have taken solace from the fact that their sons have given their lives courageously in the service of this country, and I share that view wholeheartedly. When those young men signed up for military service, they signed up to the compact under which they pledged their lives to the service of this country. However, there are two sides to that compact; we are the other side. We pledge to do all that we can to keep them out of harm's way, and to ensure that they are treated properly when injured and that their families are cherished if they sacrifice their lives. Many statements have been made today about the way in which we are fulfilling that compact, and it is important that the Government consider those messages seriously.
	Another element of that compact is that we do not send our young men into unnecessary and ill-judged wars that cannot be won. I believe that the Government have failed that critical element of the military compact. This is an unnecessary and ill-judged war that cannot be won. After eight years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to answer the question, "Why do we need this war?" It was a reaction to 9/11, started with a failed bombing campaign and led inevitably to invasion. The objective was to destroy al-Qaeda, but inevitably when the bombing strategy failed and we moved to invasion, we discovered what leaders of the British empire discovered in the 19th century and what the Russian's discovered in the 20th century—that it is impossible to fight a successful war in this terrain. I must add that all those invasions claimed the consent of the people.
	I believe that the strategy of destroying al-Qaeda flies in the face of all that we know and understand about modern terrorism, which does not need a fixed territorial base. As we have discovered, modern-day terrorists can be based as much in Leeds as in the mountains of Afghanistan itself. The attempts to evict al-Qaeda from Afghanistan have simply led to its wider dispersal across Pakistan, Somalia and terrorist cells deeper into western Europe. If the war aim was to destroy or remove the Taliban because they harbour al-Qaeda, it completely underestimated, as hon. Members have said, the complexity of the relationships within the Taliban and the scale and depth of support for them in the region, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
	If the objective of the war was to tackle terrorism associated with al-Qaeda, a more effective alternative would have been to focus on states' policing role in gaining intelligence on terrorist organisations and activities and in intervening to prevent terrorist strikes. As important is to negotiate with elements that might be attracted to support or harbour terrorists, to divide them wherever possible and to ensure that we gain some purchase on negotiating opportunities with the Taliban. Of course, an effective anti-terrorist strategy must ensure that no action is taken that mobilises support for terrorism, and must win the hearts and minds of potential recruits by addressing grievances. Far from addressing such a strategy, the war in Afghanistan is using resources on military action that should be used in the policing and prevention of terrorism. Far from isolating the Taliban, it has spread their influence into Pakistan, and far from dividing them, it has united Taliban elements into a cohesive fighting force. Far from winning hearts and minds, the war, as in Iraq, has become a rallying symbol for terrorist recruitment.
	A tragedy is being played out in Afghanistan, and in our society too. The argument that we are tackling the drugs problem has been undermined today. Afghanistan is now the drug capital of the world. There is the argument that we are installing a democratic Government, but, as has been explained today, that Government is corrupt and considered illegitimate even by their own people—it is a Government of warlords oppressing their own people. As my hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, the argument about the oppression of women has been undermined by women in Afghanistan demonstrating against oppression that they say has actually been worse than under the Taliban.
	We need to address this tragedy: the lives being lost, the families being destroyed, the immense human suffering. At some stage, the Government will have to face up to the need to negotiate a withdrawal. We need to request that other regional powers come to our aid in negotiating with all parties, including the Taliban, a constitutional settlement for the long-term future of Afghanistan. The strategy must involve conflict resolution, bring people together, and recognise their grievances and why they have taken up arms, as they see it, to protect their own country. It is also about developing an alternative terrorism strategy involving intelligence, policing and ensuring respect for the grievances that lead people to take up terrorist activity. The sooner we come to terms with that, the sooner we can end the suffering of the British and Afghani families who have been drawn into this tragic and desperate war.

Bob Russell: The Government have a lot more to do to win the battle of hearts and minds, not just in Afghanistan, but in this country. I am pleased to say that in 30 minutes' time, in Colchester, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, Brigadier Chiswell, will be doing just that. He will have a briefing with more than 100 leading members of the local community, in what is being billed as a "Post Afghanistan Operational Presentation". That is where I would be if it was not for this debate.
	Aspects of this debate will be fed back to our troops in Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand province. Aspects of it will also be picked up by the families of those serving there, those who have served there and, particularly, the families of those who have lost loved ones. This time last year, as the Secretary of State for Defence will recall, it was soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade who were taking the brunt and losing lives. I visited Afghanistan twice last year, and I suspect that the morale there today is as it was a year ago—very upbeat, with people determined to get on with the job.
	We in this country admire that professionalism. We sent troops to Afghanistan because it is in the interests of the civilised world that there is success there. I am delighted to say that tomorrow, to show that respect, the honorary freedom of the borough of Colchester will be bestowed on 16 Air Assault Brigade. I have every confidence that for the fourth time in 12 months, the High street will be packed with thousands of local people. Sadly, two of the occasions on which that respect was shown were military funerals, but there was an upbeat mood at the "welcome home" parade. On Saturday, the Colchester military festival will take place, and in excess of 20,000 people are expected. That is all part and parcel of winning hearts and minds in this country. Although I voted against the Iraq war, the Government are absolutely right in what they are doing in Afghanistan, and I support them 100 per cent. in that.
	That said, I challenged the Prime Minister on a point on Monday. I heard the Foreign Secretary say today that there are 51 countries deployed in Afghanistan. What is not said is how few European countries have deployed troops to southern Afghanistan. Certainly none of the major European countries—"major" in terms of population and the size of their armed forces—have done so. If possible, we need to get our European allies on board more.
	We will not go into the matter of helicopters—we have had that debate—but I urge the Secretary of State for Defence to look into getting more unmanned aerial vehicles. I am absolutely convinced that if we deployed more of them, our troops would be able to see what is happening, and hopefully could deal with some ambushes before they happen. Please, Secretary of State, let us have a lot more UAVs.
	I believe that the Afghan people do, in the main, support what is going on. I have met representatives of the Helmand provincial council, including two lady council members who would never be allowed to hold office if the Taliban ran the country, and that is an important point.
	I said that I was sure that messages from this debate will find their way to Afghanistan, but messages come back from the front line to families, too. Two days ago, I received a letter from a mother; I shall end with a quote from it, because I find it poignant, and because it confirms what I say about winning hearts and minds:
	"Dear Mr Russell,
	I hope you won't mind me writing to you, but before a fall put an end to a planned visit to Colchester, I intended to lay flowers & a card at the garrison & somehow try to thank the people of the town for their support & generosity.
	Why, I guess you are asking yourself? Well, last year my son, along with fourteen other Aussie soldiers, had the honour of training and serving alongside the 7 paras RHA, where they were later deployed together in Helmand.
	On their return, the boys told us of the kindness and generosity shown to them, the most welcomed food parcels, cards and good wishes whilst in Colchester and Afghanistan.
	So, from a group of Australian mums, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and eternal gratitude for not forgetting 'our boys' but including them in your thoughts during the harrowing months.
	With kindest regards to you and the wonderful people of Colchester.
	Maureen Cohen (Mrs.)"
	That letter comes from New South Wales.

John Horam: I, too, had the privilege of visiting Helmand province recently, and I strongly echo what the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has just said about the professionalism, commitment and bravery—and, indeed, hope—of the troops there. The fact is that there is greater hope in the country at the moment.
	First, there has been the US surge—the extra American troops supporting our British troops contribute enormously to a sensible arrangement between the forces. Secondly, there has been a significant change in the attitude of the Pakistani army, Government and people. We therefore have the opportunity, for the first time in eight years, of having what is in effect a pincer movement, from the north in Afghanistan and the south in Pakistan, against the Taliban troops who are along the border and the Durand line. The situation is definitely hopeful, and we should not underplay that.
	In the short time available, I want to move on to Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues rather than military issues, because I have concerns about the FCO. First, I was dismayed to learn at a recent briefing by the interdepartmental committee on policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan that there is no Pashto speaker at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or Department for International Development in the area and only two Pashto speakers in the military in the area.
	Once upon a time—perhaps in the days of the Malakand field force, about which Churchill wrote a book—the Foreign Office could produce people who could speak Pashto out of the top of its head, but the fact is that there are none now. Why is that the situation after eight years? I hope that the Defence Secretary will pass on that concern to his colleagues in the Foreign Office. There is a real problem; obviously, there has to be dialogue between the troops and DFID and FCO representatives and the local Afghan people. That should involve native speakers as far as possible. We know what happened in Iraq: it is very difficult to work all the time through interpreters.
	My second point is about continuity of personnel. The contracts are negotiated individually by the FCO, but they often last only six months, and for those six months people work six weeks on and two weeks off. That means that one person may be doing one and a half jobs—not only their own job, but half of somebody else's as well. There is therefore a very short time for people to get experience. Furthermore, because of the difficulties of the situation, more mature officials with families do not want to go to the country. The people on the ground are young, inexperienced, do not speak the language and are there for only a short time. Is that a sensible way to show our commitment to a foreign policy that is so decisive and such a priority in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I suggest not.
	Thirdly, I want to return to a point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). When I was in Afghanistan only two months ago, the UN commissioner was in despair about co-operation between the various organisations and national bodies: the European Union, the Americans, NATO and so forth. There are so many different people there, and so many acronyms that one has to deal with, that the situation is fantastically complicated. We must have some simplification and real co-ordination. I hope that General McChrystal might be able to impose some degree of greater co-ordination. However, I am afraid that the Americans are part of the problem because—according to the UN commissioner—they do not sufficiently tell other people what they are doing and what is happening.
	Finally, over the past four or five years there has been mission creep. Other aspects have developed, absolutely desirable as they may be. The hon. Member for City of Durham referred to the young women in the streets of Kabul going to and from school in their hundreds. One's heart leaps at that wonderful, marvellous sight, but the fact is that we are not ultimately there for that reason. We are there to pursue the Taliban and arrive at a point where we can withdraw because the Afghan Government, army, police and justice system are able to cope with the Taliban and the threat from al-Qaeda. That is why we must now, and at all times, concentrate on security and on helping our troops.

Ann Winterton: I would like to associate myself with the powerfully and eloquently expressed remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about the families of our armed services, and indeed all those who serve in our armed services.
	The answer that I received to my question in Monday's Defence questions from the Minister for the Armed Forces convinced me that it will be a miracle if we ever win the war in Afghanistan. It could so easily end in yet another military defeat, perhaps not like in Iraq, where we were virtually shown the door, but through the potential—I stress that word—collapse of support in the United Kingdom as more and more body bags are returned home and people ask why. I believe that that question has been answered very adequately several times in this debate, so I do not intend to repeat the reasons.
	My question to the Minister was:
	"Is not one of the greatest threats to the security of Afghanistan the incompetence and abject failure of reconstruction projects which are imposing additional intolerable burdens on our security forces?"
	He responded:
	"Health centres are open, schools have been rebuilt and girls are at school in Afghanistan today, and that simply was not the case in 2001. Yes, we face significant challenges, but I think that hon. Members understate the progress we are making if they deny that reality."—[ Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 19.]
	The reality is that both the ministry and the military are spinning like mad, making out that the United Kingdom is winning, just as they did when we were in Iraq, when in fact we are losing. The military and politicians alike blame the Government for underfunding defence, but when one considers the expense and waste in what can only be described as some disastrous procurement decisions, it is enough to make one weep.
	Three ministries are involved in Afghanistan—the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence—and they appear to be failing to work together. Indeed, that must be the case if the three Secretaries of State have only one meeting a month. I can only question how security is to be achieved by the provision of health centres and schools—which will, in any case, be provided only in the town areas, not in the countryside. Health centres and schools are very desirable, but the first priority should surely be security so that people can go about their daily lives feeling relatively safe.
	Yet another example of a total waste of money is the theme park with the Ferris wheel. Who can have allowed such a stupid decision to have been made, at not inconsiderable expense? Is the international community expected to pay the staff and running costs for ever? Unless the economy in Afghanistan is developed with local people playing a full part, it will most certainly have to continue to do so. Coupled with that, the desire to turn the fragmented tribal nation that is Afghanistan into a democracy greater than the one that we experience here in the United Kingdom is surely a mission beyond reality, not least because of the high levels of corruption, including at the highest level in government.
	The international security assistance force and Afghan national army forces can hold the cities and towns—some only just—but the countryside can never be held in the foreseeable future while the rural population continue to be bombed and shot at. They have precious few benefits and certainly no peace or security, and for many years ahead the Taliban will be prepared to evaporate from and reappear at will in that community, from which they are of course indistinguishable to non-Afghans.
	One way in which the hearts and minds of the rural population could be won is through the creation of good communications—in other words, a road and bridge network that would allow the movement of goods and thereby encourage trading and the development of markets and businesses. That, in turn, would enhance stability, because people have a vested interest in peace and security.
	If one studies the history of any nation, one sees that the greatest progress comes about when there are boom times, with the population in work, fed and housed. A good communications and transport infrastructure is an essential element of that. Schools and hospitals follow when a profitable business base has been developed to support those ventures in both rural areas and towns. We are surely putting the cart before the horse by not focusing on construction projects, which would bring in their wake enhanced security.

Ann Winterton: I will not if the hon. Lady does not mind, because of the time.
	If ISAF shows no confidence in the inadequate road network and have to use off-road vehicles, what signal does that send to the Afghan national army, the police and civilians, and the—

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said about the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments here in Whitehall. It has become axiomatic that Whitehall is not on a war footing, as it should be. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said about the complexity that we have created for ourselves, particularly between the EU and NATO. Everybody knows that that arrangement does not work and has to be sorted out on the ground in spite of institutional conflicts.
	That underlines the fact that, although I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), the original deployment on Operation Herrick IV in 2006 will prove to be one of the most ill-judged and ill-conceived military deployments of modern decades. That is not because of what he said or did not say at the time, but it is widely known and has been confirmed on the public record to the Defence Committee by Brigadier Ed Butler that the whole operation was artificially capped by the Treasury at 3,150 men and a cost of £1.5 billion, a sum that was meant to last over three years. That initial strategy was quickly diverted by political pressures into the platoon house strategy and into defending far too many forward operating bases with far too few troops and—the ubiquitous subject—far too few helicopters.

Bernard Jenkin: I have to accept the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman has given, even though we have conflicting testimony. However, we have wonderful armed forces in this country, who tend to put the best complexion on what they are being asked to do; they tend to give the optimistic view. I have an eye-witness account of the final Cabinet Committee meeting that signed off the deployment. A row was expected, but it never took place. We know that the deployment was driven ultimately by the desire to showcase Helmand as the British province that would lead the way as an example to the rest of Afghanistan. That has lamentably not been the case. We are finding ourselves in an Iraq situation, whereby we depend on American reinforcements to bail us out of circumstances, which we have neither the capacity nor the military will to pursue on our own.
	We need to be realistic about the way in which the campaign is developing. Between September and December 2007, there were 75 improvised explosive device attacks on NATO forces. In the same period the next year, there were 180 such attacks. This year, there were 361 attacks in March, 407 in April, 465 in May and 736 in June. The dramatic rise in casualties was inevitable in those circumstances. I respect those who say that a rise in casualties was inevitable, given that there is currently a big push forward, which is being resisted.
	However, we are in the early stages of a new Afghan strategy. President Obama, for good or ill, has decided to make Afghanistan rather than Iraq his political priority. I believe that that is directed more by electoral and politically correct UN-sanctioned considerations rather than a more realistic campaign. It became clear to me as soon as I rejoined the Select Committee in 2006 that the problems in Iraq would be far easier to resolve and that Afghanistan would be a much harder nut to crack. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) said, we are still trying to turn Afghanistan into a fully functioning state. That is a tall order for a country that has hardly ever been such—certainly not in living memory. At least Iraq had been a country and feels like a nation. Afghanistan is made up of many nations, which have historically been at war with each other.
	However, we have a new strategy under General McChrystal of primarily defending civilians and putting in far more troops, but it is too soon to say what will happen. I find myself—somewhat uncomfortably—agreeing with the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who start from a completely different premise from me. I fear that their pessimism may be vindicated, but it is too soon for the House to decide or form a judgment about whether the new McChrystal strategy will succeed. However, we will know in a few short months—soon after the elections in August and by the time the House sits again in the autumn.
	At that time, neither the House nor Ministers should depend on yet more military advice—it is not right just to ask for more military advice until a politically convenient answer is given. The politicians must take responsibility for a proper judgment call on whether it is worth continuing to pursue a strategy that already appears to be in some trouble. Perhaps we will need to revert to a much more limited objective. Perhaps the offensive will buy us the space in which to develop a much more limited strategy. We will know in a few short months the judgments that we are required to make.

Tobias Ellwood: If the Secretary of State has an idea of what is going on, he should inform his troops, because they do not know. That is what they told us—that is exactly what happened.
	Let us look at the figures. Our MOD budget for Afghanistan is £2.7 billion, while the DFID budget is £207 million—these are 2008 figures. The difference is almost tenfold. There is no way that we can go in and clear and hold and then expect to build if there is a tenfold difference between what we are spending on reconstruction and development and what we are spending on security. That money comes from DFID's budget of £7 billion, but that is aside from the myriad other funds that go into Afghanistan, through the EU, the United States Agency for International Development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Vital co-ordination is required, which needs to be tied in with what we are doing on the ground, so that we have a plan when the bullets stop flying in places such as Babaji.
	The other aspect that needs to be underlined is the importance of the Afghan national army. Training is progressing, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said two days ago, only 8 per cent. of the Afghan armed forces are based in Helmand, which compares with the fact that 40 per cent. of the fighting in Afghanistan is taking place in that province. Why are the Afghans not doing more? My right hon. Friend made that point, and by the next day the Prime Minister was on the front page of  The Guardian claiming to be demanding that President Karzai send in more troops. I am glad that the Prime Minister is waking up to the cause, but it is a shame that he cannot admit where he got the information from.
	There is no time to focus on the economic issues; I would just like to stress how useful it would be to complete a 50-km railway line from Spin Boldak to Kandahar. That would allow markets to develop and allow people to move away from the poppy trade.
	I would like to end on a tribute to a friend and Army colleague, Colonel Rupert Thorneloe. I have just come from his funeral. He was riding in the front passenger seat of a Viking on 1 July and was killed instantly by an IED, along with Trooper Joshua Hammond. Colonel Thorneloe wanted to see the lay of the land, but there were no helicopters, so he had to jump on a convoy that was taking "replen" to the 2nd Battalion. He leaves behind Sally, his wife, and Hannah and Sophie, his two daughters.
	I highlight Rupert Thorneloe not because he is an officer, but because he was a friend. We met at Sandhurst and have been friends since. It is a sombre occasion to hear the names of the fallen read out at Prime Minister's questions, but it is now a regular event. The reading out of the names of fallen Britons in the battles of Afghanistan is a moving ritual, but there is an emotional distance for us here, where we can secure ourselves away from the horror that a family has to go through when confronted with the news, either on television or in the Chamber, that someone has died. We feel for that family here—for their loss and their emptiness—but unless we know the person or the family personally, we choose to move on, perhaps deliberately, in order not to dwell on the circumstances or the tragic consequences for those who have to live with the memories.
	More than 50 regimental colours and battle honours line the walls of the Guards chapel at Wellington barracks. They carry the scars of hundreds of years of campaigns. Each one is weathered and faded, hanging motionless but shouting out a thousand stories of bravery by the soldiers who followed it into battle. They served as a fitting backdrop to the brand new Union Jack that covered Colonel Rupert Thorneloe's coffin, which was carried by eight Guardsmen in complete silence, other than the sound of their boots marching in step. And so tributes were paid, a life was celebrated and a death mourned. He was a brave soldier, and a quiet, intelligent and compassionate man. He was devoted to his wife, Sally, and to his daughters, Hannah and Sophie.
	Having known Rupert Thorneloe, I have dwelt on his death, and consequently on the sacrifices that he and others have made. I have made it my business to try to understand what is happening in Afghanistan, which is not so much a nation as a land mass occupied by an incredible mixture of cultures, ideas, languages and peoples who have rarely been united in the past 1,000 years other than when forced to come together to fend off an aggressor on their own land.
	I urge the Prime Minister to rethink our objectives in Afghanistan and what we are trying to achieve there, and to provide all the support and resources necessary not only to provide security but to enable the Afghans to stand on their own feet and finally to allow our troops to come home.

Liam Fox: I am confident in saying that, for all of us in this House, the sight of flag-draped coffins carrying those who have died in the service of their country back to our shores is a reminder that the death of every serviceman and servicewoman is a personal tragedy that leaves a permanent hole in the lives of those who loved them. Likewise, every limb lost and every disabling injury represents a life changed for ever. It is not least because of these sacrifices that we have a duty to ensure at all times that we, the politicians, get the policy right.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) began this debate by talking about the fact that we are in Afghanistan out of necessity, not choice. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) reminded us that we are there as a legal requirement as part of our treaty obligations when article 5 of the NATO treaty has been invoked. That is not pointed out often enough when we discuss Afghanistan.
	We are in Afghanistan primarily for reasons of our national security. It has been pointed out frequently and correctly in this debate that Afghanistan was the place where the 9/11 attacks were hatched and planned, and it would again be a place where that could happen, were we not to deny the space to those who did that planning. That is why we are there. There are many other laudable aims, some of which have been discussed this afternoon. It is wonderful when we can get Afghan girls back into school, and when we see the extension of human rights, but we are primarily there for reasons of national security. We need to remind the public of that if we are to maintain public support and the necessary resilience to see this conflict through.
	It is sometimes difficult for us to express what we mean by winning in Afghanistan, but it is easy to describe what we mean by losing. Were we to lose, and to be forced out of Afghanistan against our will, it would be a shot in the arm for every jihadist globally. It would send out the signal that we did not have the moral fortitude to see through what we believe to be a national security emergency. It would suggest that NATO, in its first great challenge since the end of the cold war, did not have what it takes to see a difficult challenge through.
	The countries that have rightly been identified today as not pulling their weight and not engaging in proper burden sharing in Afghanistan might like to reflect on what the collapse of NATO would mean. Those countries that have failed to make the 2 per cent. of GDP cut in respect of their defence spending might want to reflect on the effect that a world with an isolationist United States might have on their security. I hope that those in many capitals—not least the capitals of the European NATO member states—are reflecting on what life might look like if NATO were to start to fall apart.
	When it comes to what we mean by winning, we have to stand back and recognise that this is a geopolitical struggle. The reason why we can define what we mean by winning is that we want to see a stable Afghanistan, able to manage its own internal and external security to a degree that stops interference from outside powers and allows the country to resist the terror bases and the training camps that were there before. That is what success means in Afghanistan. We are not trying to apply, or we should not be trying to apply, a Jeffersonian democracy or a western European ethos to a broken 13th century state—and certainly not within a decade. Those are unrealistic aims that are likely only to disappoint public opinion in the UK and to frustrate those in Afghanistan who are finding it difficult to build on the ground.
	What we need to see, as has been regularly pointed out in this debate, is a strengthening of the Afghan national army, a nurturing and then a strengthening of the Afghan national police and the development of a rule of law in which there is some semblance of the fact that the governing and the governed are being treated in a similar way. That should eventually lead to the concept of rights, which will be necessary if we are to see any sort of democratic structure in the future.
	Of course no one believes that we can have a purely military victory in Afghanistan. As has been pointed out, we will have to deal with those who are reconcilable, even from among those who may have fought against us in the past, and we may have to recognise that some will be irreconcilable—and the only way to deal with them will be in a military fashion. Much as we would like everybody to be reasonable, we need to recognise that some will be utterly unreasonable; they have chosen to confront us, so we will have no option but to confront them in due course.
	One aspect that has moved on, and which is enormously positive in comparison with the position in some of our previous debates, is that we now recognise that Afghanistan and Pakistan have to be dealt with as a single entity—a single issue. From the Foreign Secretary's speech onwards today, there has been a realisation in the House that that is where we need to go. We must give Pakistan every support we possibly can financially, politically and militarily, because a collapse in Pakistan would make what we want to see in the region utterly impossible. If we think we have problems with a broken state such as Afghanistan, we should try a broken Pakistan nuclearly armed and with a vastly greater population.
	Pakistan already has deep-rooted political problems and very deep-seated economic problems. It has problems with its relationship with India—the situation is still very tense—which causes the country to keep a large proportion of its armed forces facing in that direction. Now we are asking Pakistan to do more in the north-west, which is a tall order. Other countries in the region and traditional allies of Pakistan should also ask what they can do to help on that particular front.
	When we send our forces to war, we have two basic duties to fulfil. One is that we have to do everything possible to guarantee the success of the mission; and secondly, we have to do everything possible to minimise the risk to our armed forces in carrying out that mission. We need to have a clear strategy, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary mentioned at the outset, yet we sometimes have a lack of clarity about what it is that NATO, the UN, the US or Afghanistan are trying to do. It is sometimes not a question of whether we have a strategy, but of whether we have too many of them and whether they are, in fact, compatible with one other.
	We also need a clear command structure. I think that the structure is improving, but it has been a problem in recent years. We need co-ordination between Government Departments here and agencies abroad, including in Afghanistan. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) mentioned, the relationship with the Afghan Government is rife with corruption. We are not seeing the NGOs going in and carrying out reconstruction. Indeed, I think we need to ask ourselves whether we have the capability in this country to carry out reconstruction in a hostile environment. If the answer is no, we have to do much more to create that capability and learn from what has been done elsewhere.
	We must have better burden sharing among the allies, which is simply not happening, and we must have the equipment we need. Let us make no mistake: we are engaged in a crucial and historic struggle, so public trust is important for the resilience that we will need. The public must believe that they are being told the truth and given the full picture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said at the outset that it would be better if we had regular updates or perhaps quarterly debates in the House, with the Government coming forward, even if it had to be in closed session, to enable Parliament to know exactly what was happening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) pointed out that the Prime Minister has behaved, at best, in a very casual manner when it comes to keeping the House involved. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, there is an erosion of trust between Ministers and the public, and Ministers and the military, which is extremely unhealthy.
	There is no doubt that the personal equipment that our armed forces are getting is immensely improved. If one talks to soldiers on the ground, they will say that their personal kit is much better than they have had before. That is to be welcomed—a lot of it came late in the day, but it is welcome that it is there. However, we still have a problem with armoured vehicles and helicopters, which are related issues. There is no way to guarantee the safety of our forces in a conflict zone—the public know that we cannot fight wars without casualties and fatalities, but they expect us to minimise the risk. Of course, helicopters are not a panacea—they are vulnerable themselves—but we must give our commanders the option of moving our men more by air, and not simply depending on movements by road, which signal to the Taliban what is coming, and make our forces more vulnerable.
	Time and again in recent days, we have pointed out that the cut to the helicopter budget of £1.4 billion in 2004, in the middle of two wars, was a catastrophic decision. The Government were warned about the consequences, did not do anything to deal with the matter and are now playing catch-up. Worse, instead of admitting the mistakes, they are treating us to word games and distorting statistics. I sometimes wonder whether the Prime Minister has a pathological inability to admit that mistakes have been made. When he talked about a 60 per cent. increase in helicopter capacity over two years, he failed to point out that since we deployed properly to Helmand three years ago the number of troops has increased by 100 per cent. It does not take a genius to do the maths and work out what that means. Does he think that that fools anyone? Does he think our troops will not see through the spin being applied? Today's Defence Committee report also pointed out future gaps in terms of helicopters.
	The issue of troop numbers was also touched on briefly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex spoke with great clarity on the matter. The Opposition have not had a presentation from our military chiefs about increased numbers. However, there is a widespread understanding that 2,000 extra troops were sought, with an extra battalion to help to train the Afghan national army, and one for the Afghan national police. We have always said that more troops should be accompanied by proportionate and appropriate increases in resources. However, if the Prime Minister turned down a request for more men, which would have helped to speed up the training of the Afghan army and police, therefore enabling us to carry out our task and leave Afghanistan earlier, why was it refused? The British public have a right to know why the Prime Minister did not take the advice of the senior military.
	Right at the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said that we are fortunate that in a society without conscription, we have people courageous and committed enough to put their lives at risk voluntarily for the security of their country and their fellow citizens. They know their duty, and risk their lives carrying it out. We, too, have a duty to them. It is time that that duty was properly and fully carried out.

Bob Ainsworth: It was very important that we debated Afghanistan today, particularly with the losses that we have been suffering in recent days. I do not disagree that there is a need for regular debates: I arranged a briefing from the military on Tuesday, so that we could have a briefing before the recess. We shall try to ensure that we have debates as regularly as possible.
	We all need to be focused on understanding what our people are doing in Afghanistan. I understand the importance of ensuring the widest possible cross-party support. With all the talk that there has rightly been about material support for our forces to do the job we ask them to do, let us not forget the need for moral support as well.
	Our armed forces are the best of the best: professional, skilled, determined and courageous. As many Members of the House have today, I want to add my tribute to the fallen: their sacrifice must never be forgotten, and neither should we forget the sacrifice of those who return with life-changing injuries, whether physical or mental. They must and will receive the support that they need. We owe it to all those who have fallen, to those who have suffered, and to the entire nation, to explain why the sacrifice is being made.
	As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are operating in Afghanistan to protect our national security. We are fighting the Taliban to prevent al-Qaeda, and the terrorists whom they bring, from returning to Afghanistan and threatening us directly. For Britain to be secure, Afghanistan needs to be secure. This is not just about the UK's national security; 42 nations are taking part in one of the widest ever international coalitions, and it is about their national security too. The international community has a joint strategy for success, not just a military strategy but a comprehensive strategy for governance, development and reconstruction.
	People ask—it has been asked again in the House today—why we are fighting in Afghanistan when al-Qaeda has relocated to Pakistan. Given that we defeated the Taliban in 2001, why are we still fighting them now in 2009? Those questions are understandable, but they misunderstand the situation. Al-Qaeda has relocated to the borderlands in Pakistan and it poses a direct threat to Pakistan and to wider international security, but it is not in Afghanistan, because we are in Afghanistan. If we allowed ungoverned space to exist in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda would take the opportunity to return. That is why, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier, our strategy is not on Afghanistan alone, but focuses on Pakistan as well. That is why in April the Prime Minster presented to the House—and published in a document—our overarching, comprehensive strategy to tackle terrorism in the region which is a direct threat to our national security.
	We are fighting the Taliban now in Afghanistan because a Taliban return would give al-Qaeda greater freedom to operate: freedom to plan, direct or provide support for more terrorist attacks—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—like those of 9/11 in New York and Washington, in Madrid, and here in London, among many others. And for the Afghan people, a Taliban return would mean a return to brutality, oppression, intolerance and violent extremism. In 2001, as part of the international coalition, we defeated the Taliban and cleared out al-Qaeda. We returned in significant numbers in 2006, and have increased our commitment since then, because they are back threatening the stability of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region.
	Let me turn to some of the issues that have been raised. Helicopters are important. I shall tell the House what I will do, but first I shall tell it what I will not do. I will not put Merlins into Afghanistan before they are ready—before the crews are trained and the blades, defensive suites and night vision are fitted. I will not put soldiers in the back of helicopters in a war zone when the crews and frames are not ready.  [Interruption.] Some newspapers, and perhaps some Members, are suggesting that we can and should do that, but we cannot put Merlins in Afghanistan before December this year if we want a good, safe and capable force. We cannot bring that forward. I have talked to many people about whether we can, but we cannot.
	Let me tell the House what I will do. I will, if necessary, bend people out of shape to ensure that the Lynx has all the necessary capability from this October, so that we do not have to withdraw it in the spring. I will consider again whether there is any way in which we can bring the eight useless Chinooks that we bought back in 1996 into service any more quickly. Our plan is to get additional Chinooks out there next summer, and if we can do it more quickly, we will. I will consider again whether we can squeeze more out of every frame that we have. When troops are in the field, I am going to satisfy myself that every single muscle is being flexed in every single part of our helicopter capability.
	I saw what the Select Committee's report said about the Puma upgrade and the defence industrial strategy. I must say to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and his Committee that I hope that that is not code for putting industry before our armed forces. Capability must come first. The Puma upgrade will go ahead. Given the resources that I have, that is the best way in which to deliver the capability that we need as quickly as possible.
	Since 2006, we have increased the number of airframes available to commanders in Afghanistan by more than 60 per cent., and the number of helicopter hours, which commanders use to plan, by 84 per cent. Commanders on the ground in Afghanistan are clear that they have enough helicopters to meet the requirements of current operations, but they always want more, and I must, and will, continue to work flat out to try to deliver them everything we can.
	On troop numbers, this is an international mission to which the UK is the second largest troop contributor. UK forces are doing a large part of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, having provided the vast majority of international forces in the most difficult province in the country for the last three years. As the Chief of the General Staff intimated just yesterday, new boots do not need to be UK boots. This is a NATO operation, and we have increased our commitment as part of the surge to prepare for the elections, but so have others. There are 400 new Polish troops, 450 more Australians and more Spanish, Lithuanians, Romanians, Swedish and Germans—and, of course, thousands more from the USA.
	We have debated troop numbers and options, and, as the Prime Minister clearly stated on Monday, we keep our force levels under constant review, depending on the operational requirement. We have the manpower we need for the current operations. We will review our commitment after the Afghan elections, on the advice of our commanders and in discussions with our allies.
	Let me say a few words on Operation Panther's Claw. As the Foreign Secretary said in opening the debate, the purpose of the operation is to provide the estimated 80,000 people in the Babaji area with sufficient security to allow the elections to take place. This requires clearing out the Taliban and preventing them from intimidating local people so they can live and vote in safety. All the reports I am receiving from theatre are that this is going to plan. ISAF now has a significant security presence in a previously ungoverned area. The insurgents are being hurt; we are taking out large numbers of insurgents, but that is not the measure of success. We need to win the people. Engagement with the local population is bearing fruit: the first outreach Shura was being held in the newly cleared area; priority development and governance and reconstruction projects are being identified; and polling stations are being planned. This is happening right behind the front line. There is significant momentum and we are pushing through the area and driving the enemy out, but the task is going to remain hard, and we should brace ourselves for further casualties. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to provide our armed forces with the support they need, want and deserve as they continue to do the job.

Bob Ainsworth: We suffered the loss of a contract helicopter in the north of Helmand province and there were deaths as a result of that. I will write to the hon. Lady and give her more detail on it if she wants. I know that she often raises the issue of vehicles and that she has had a long-standing interest in the subject. People continue to say that there is a huge problem with vehicles. We have a suite of vehicles now, including Mastiff, Ridgback and Jackal. We also have the new tactical support vehicles—Wolfhound, Husky and Coyote—coming into province. It is cruel to pretend to those who have lost their lives that we will be able to stop our people dying by providing more helicopters or a suite of vehicles. Many Members have said that this afternoon, however. Even if we can get to the point where every single vehicle is available in every single location the length and breadth of the Helmand province for every operation, from time to time people will have to get out of those vehicles. They have to make contact with the people; they have to walk among them and win them over. That is dangerous work and it is cruel to pretend that we can remove the danger from the job that we ask our people to do.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Motion made,
	That Dr Richard Taylor be a member of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.—( Kerry McCarthy.)

Motion made,
	That Mary Creagh be discharged from the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Select Committee and Mr Austin Mitchell be added . —(Kerry McCarthy.)

Motion made,
	That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.— (Kerry McCarthy.)

Motion made,
	That, at the sittings on Monday 20 July and on Tuesday 21 July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received, any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.— (Kerry McCarthy.)

Motion made,
	(1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the following matters:
	(a) the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees;
	(b) scheduling business in the House;
	(c) enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House; and
	(d) such other matters as appear to the Committee to be closely connected with the matters set out above, and to report on these matters by 13 November 2009;
	(2) That the Committee also consider such other matters as may be referred to it from time to time;
	(3) That the Committee consist of eighteen Members;
	(4) That Mr Graham Allen, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Graham Brady, Mr David Clelland, Mr David Drew, Natascha Engel, Dr Evan Harris, David Howarth, Mr Michael Jack, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Chris Mullin, Dr Nick Palmer, Martin Salter, Dr Phyllis Starkey, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young be members of the Committee;
	(5) That Dr Tony Wright be Chairman of the Committee;
	(6) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
	(7) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.— (Kerry McCarthy.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mary Creagh.)

Greg Mulholland: First, I wish to thank Mr. Speaker for very graciously allowing this debate to take place, because I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the case of Enid Ruhango in the House. I truly hope that this debate will finally lead us to a just resolution of this matter.
	I make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at no point during this debate will I refer to any aspect of this case that is considered sub judice. I would not normally bring an individual asylum case before the House, but I do so today because this particular case is such a sorry saga of administrative incompetence, systematic failure and a worrying disregard for human rights. My objective today is simply to put the facts of this case on the record and highlight them to the Minister and his Department. It concerns a young woman who suffered great abuse in her home country and, I am sorry to say, at the hands of our own immigration system.
	Enid Ruhango first came to see me in 2006. She was being supported by her friends in the community of the All Hallows church in my constituency. Before approaching me, Enid had sought and received assistance from the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to whose work on this case at that time I pay tribute. I will never forget hearing Enid's story. Her description of what happened to her in Uganda was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to listen to in my life. She had experienced things that most of us could not imagine and certainly would not want to contemplate. She was clearly traumatised, yet she retained a quiet courage and dignity despite all that she had been through.
	Enid Ruhango entered this country as long ago as 5 December 2003, having fled Uganda where she had been subjected to torture and rape at the hands of Ugandan forces. Enid claimed for asylum on 15 December 2003, but her claim was refused on 9 February 2004 on the grounds that she did not qualify under the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees. On 30 April 2004, a further appeal was dismissed on both asylum and human rights grounds. In 2004, both Enid's original application for asylum and her appeal were refused on the same grounds.
	On 17 May 2004, she was detained at Waterside court, in Leeds, and was transported from there to Yarl's Wood. At Waterside court, she was offered no food. In addition, she has a long-term condition for which she needs to take medicine, but she had no medication with her at that time. Someone was sent to her flat, but they did not find any medication and she was not provided with any replacement medication. Transport left at around 7 pm and arrived at Yarl's Wood around midnight. She was not told that she would need to go to the toilet before she left and, although the van stopped on the journey, she was not allowed out. She was given no food by the escorts on the journey, and staff at Yarl's Wood gave her none on arrival. She was alone all that time in the back of the van, which smelled of urine and faeces.
	Enid was taken to the reception at Yarl's Wood around 7 am. Staff there gave her no food, though the van did not come for her until some time between noon and 2 pm on 18 May. Early in the morning, she had received tea and chocolate, but only from her room-mate. The transport arrived at Heathrow around 5.30 pm and Enid had to wait inside for a period. She asked to use a toilet and was refused; she was told that she would have to wait until she got on the plane. Again, she was given no food. Not surprisingly, Enid was highly distressed when escorts forcibly attempted to put her on board the plane and, as a result, airline staff refused to fly her to Uganda. She also reports that she received racial abuse from escorts, and that handcuffs were used in a way which resulted in cuts to the wrists—they left scars that are still visible.
	In July 2005, in protest at the way they had been treated by the detention centre, Enid and her close friend Sophie Odogo—as well as several other women at Yarl's Wood—began a 38-day hunger strike. Enid's health deteriorated rapidly and she wrote to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, who wrote to the then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), informing him that the women were on hunger strike and saying that this proved their desperation. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire also raised concerns about the quality of legal advice available to the women. In his detailed and substantial reply the Minister rebutted the suggestions of inadequate legal advice and ignored the information regarding the hunger strike.
	Enid and her friend Sophie Odogo were both admitted to Bedford hospital, but only after they had ended their hunger strike and had started eating again. At no time during the hunger strike were they taken off the premises at Yarl's Wood.
	In a letter dated 23 August 2005, the Immigration Minister stated that the Home Office took no account of the well-being of an individual once they had returned to their country of origin, and therefore the problems that Enid might have securing the medication for her condition when in Uganda were not a consideration in her appeal. On 17 October 2005, the Minister wrote again, saying:
	"The doctors at Yarl's Wood assessed Ms Ruhango yesterday afternoon and concluded that there is no medical or psychiatric problem with her. She is eating and normally mobile."
	Surely someone who has been in that situation cannot be considered to be in a state of physical and mental well-being. Both Enid and Sophie continued to be held at Yarl's Wood despite their medical problems. Sophie's condition deteriorated so badly that she was transferred to a secure mental health facility, and they were of course in no condition to be deported.
	Enid complained that she was not receiving correct treatment for her condition and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire wrote again, voicing his concerns that Yarl's Wood did not seek second options from objective medical sources in the treatment of detainees.
	On 7 December 2005, Enid's bail hearing was ordered for 10 am at Sheldon court in Birmingham. Transport left Yarl's Wood around 9 am. It did not go directly to Birmingham, but arrived at Colnbrook immigration removal centre around 12.30 pm. Only then were toilet facilities made available inside the building. Enid was taken to Birmingham, arriving between 3.30 and 4.30 pm, when the bail hearing had been fixed for 10 am. No food or toilet facilities were made available between Colnbrook and Birmingham. On the return journey to Yarl's Wood, Enid was supplied with Kentucky Fried Chicken—escorts had contacted Yarl's Wood, saying she had not eaten since the morning. She arrived back at Yarl's Wood around 6 pm.
	As is well documented, the chief inspector of prisons Anne Owers launched an inquiry into health care at Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre in May 2005, after concerns were raised not only for the safety of Enid and Sophie but for that of the other women taking part in the hunger strike. The report refers to Enid as Ms B and Sophie as Ms A, and it states:
	"The delivery of healthcare was undermined by a lack of needs assessment, weak clinical governance systems, and inadequate staff training in relation to trauma...When clinical concerns were raised, the information was not systematically addressed or actioned. Nor was independent medical opinion sought or adhered to...Towards the end of the hunger strike, they were probably being advised inappropriately to re-feed in Yarl's Wood. One seems to have been denied painkilling medication while on hunger strike."
	I could go on. Those devastating criticisms of the procedures in Yarl's Wood completely undermine the assertions made in correspondence between me and the Home Office that Enid was in receipt of good care there. Moreover, health reports since then have shown that this is a woman suffering from psychological problems.
	On 22 December 2006, Dr. Christina Pourgourides, a consultant psychiatrist, said of Enid:
	"She is currently suffering from very significant mental health problems, namely post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive illness...She is at very substantial risk of a grave deterioration in her mental health, particularly if faced with the prospect of further detention and/or removal. Should this occur, I believer her to be a significant health risk."
	Enid was eventually released from detention on 26 February 2006. Even though Yarl's Wood is supposed to be a temporary detention centre, she was there for nine months. Although both a Member of Parliament and a solicitor have raised concerns independently about the medical attention at Yarl's Wood, I do not feel that that has been taken into consideration in this case.
	Throughout this time, I have had much correspondence with different Ministers on this issue, as has the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. In 2006, he wrote to make the point that Enid should be allowed to stay in the country because of her association with Sophie Odogo, who was then involved in a civil case and has now been granted leave to remain.
	Enid's treatment in the asylum and immigration system has been a scandal. The Home Office continually changed the schedule according to which Enid had to report to the immigration centre between weekly and fortnightly, despite the fact that she and her supporters had provided psychological reports detailing the emotional damage that these increased visits were doing. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, took over responsibility for the case at the Home Office, my requests for a meeting about Enid's asylum case were repeatedly declined. Despite several requests, the Home Office has not altered its position.
	In a letter that I wrote on 25 July 2006, I ensured that the Minister was aware of the damning verdict on the centre as detailed in the report by the chief inspector of prisons. I have written several times to express my frustration at the clear lack of progress since that appalling time at Yarl's Wood.
	Enid made a fresh asylum and European convention on human rights claim on 9 May 2008 but, notwithstanding its complexity and obvious merit, the Home Office refused to treat it as a fresh claim and sought therefore to deny her a right of appeal. Two psychologists said that Enid was clearly not mentally fit to be deported, but it took the Home Office 11 days to reject those submissions, with no right of appeal. The Home Office quickly withdrew its refusal to accept them when Enid's lawyers called for judicial review—surely a sign that they knew their case was weak—and Enid's solicitors agreed to suspend their application for judicial review at the Home Office's request.
	In 2008, the Home Office again ignored psychiatric reports and put Enid back on a weekly reporting schedule, causing her great distress. In March, an extraordinary series of events led to the cancellation, on the day, of an immigration hearing on the case. I made considerable effort to attend the hearing, as did several witnesses, including a consultant psychiatrist who travelled from Birmingham and a witness who travelled from Bedford, as well as the barrister and solicitor, who travelled from London. On the very day, however, the Home Office withdrew the procedure, which frankly beggars belief given that everyone was already in place. I wrote to the Home Office asking for the costs of the cancellation, but I still have not had a response. That, I am afraid, epitomises the way this case has been handled.
	Let us consider the history of this case. It beggars belief that no one at the Home Office reviewed the decision before the hearing on 30 March. Responsibility for the farce of withdrawing the hearing on the day lies entirely with the Home Office. Again, it caused enormous distress to an already traumatised woman. Then the Home Office agreed to make a new decision in 10 working days; it did not keep to that deadline, but it did then decide to refuse asylum and grant discretionary leave to remain for six months. That, frankly, was particularly cruel, because, given that leave was granted for less than six months, it meant that Enid had no right of appeal—the cruellest twist in this cruel case and the end, effectively, of her asylum claim.
	I have raised this matter in the House on several occasions, but never received a satisfactory reply. I have written numerous times to Ministers, and before that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire did so. Most recently, I raised the case in this House with the Minister for Borders and Immigration, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who reassured me that the Government were looking into the case. Again, however, I have heard nothing since.
	I appreciate the opportunity to put the facts of this shameful case on the record, and I hope that the Minister will consider it in its entirety. I shall assist him in doing so and will happily meet him and his colleagues, if they so wish. The simple reality is that this woman, who was terrorised in her home country of Uganda, has been let down in the United Kingdom. Enid's only family now are her friends and the community in Leeds and, in particular, at All Hallows church. The handling of this case, and the treatment of Enid Ruhango by our immigration system, is a stain on the reputation of this country as a bastion of democracy and a haven from political persecution. It is surely time to let her get on with her life—a life so damaged—which has now, in this country, been in limbo for such a long time.
	Will the Minister, or his colleague the Minister for Borders and Immigration, look into this case and intervene personally, not just out of compassion—one could hardly not feel that listening to the facts—but out of a clear sense of the need to right the wrongs done to this woman in the name of his Department? I implore him and his ministerial colleague to intervene and finally bring this sorry saga to the only just conclusion and to fulfil the manifest moral responsibility to end Enid's years of suffering by finally granting her indefinite leave to remain in this country. After so many years, and after so much failure and suffering for Enid in our immigration system, anything less would be an insult to justice.

John Battle: I understand that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister. We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) for the way in which he raised the issue, and for the facts that he has put on the table. I represent the reception centre for the whole of west Yorkshire—it is in my neighbourhood—and Waterside court. I probably see 100 or more asylum seekers a month, and have done for years. I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been a lack of care—indeed, a neglect of the duty of care—at Yarl's Wood. On Enid's case, may I offer her and the hon. Gentleman a word of support? She has tremendous support and there is strong, personal, in-depth solidarity with her in the local community. Will the Minister assure us that he will not let the case lie in a Department in-tray, and not let it be backlogged in a legal procedure, but will instead seriously get his Department to look at her case again, from tonight?